Kansas Amendment 1, Definition of Marriage Amendment (2005)

Kansas Amendment 1
Election date April 5, 2005
Topic Family-related policy and LGBTQ issues
Status Overturned
Type Legislatively referred constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

Kansas Amendment 1 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in Kansas on April 5, 2005. This amendment was later overturned in court.

A "yes" vote supported amending the constitution by: Defining marriage as "a civil contract between one man and one woman only;"  Providing that "any other marriage is contrary to public policy and void;"  Prohibiting the state from recognizing any other legal relationship that would "entitle the parties in the relationship to the rights or incidents of marriage."

A "no" vote opposed amending the constitution.

Election results

Kansas Amendment 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		417,675	69.95%
No		179,432	30.05%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What was the amendment designed to do?

The amendment was designed to define marriage as "a civil contract between one man and one woman only." It provided that "any other marriage is contrary to public policy and void." It also prohibited the state from recognizing any other legal relationship that would "entitle the parties in the relationship to the rights and incidents of marriage."

Aftermath

Tenth Circuit Court

On June 25, 2014, a three member panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down bans on gay marriage in the states of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. This was the first ruling made by a federal appeals court on this issue, which sets a historic precedent that voter-approved bans on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of same-sex couples to equal protection and due process.

The court states:

“

We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm.

”

A recording of the decision can be heard here

Implementation of the decision was immediately stayed pending anticipated appeals to either the full appeals panel or the United States Supreme Court.

On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case appealing the decision of the federal circuit court, thus allowing the ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court to stand and making same-sex marriage "presumptively legal" in Kansas.

U.S. District Court

On November 4, 2014, United States District Court Judge Daniel D. Crabtree ruled that the state of Kansas cannot prohibit same-sex marriage. Judge Crabtree delayed the ruling from taking effect for a week, allowing state officials to appeal the decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Attorney General Derek Schmidt sought initial en banc review of the case with the Tenth Circuit and asked for a stay of decision while the appeal goes forward. On November 12, 2014, the stay was vacated.

U.S. Supreme Court

See also: Obergefell v. Hodges

On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution in the case Obergefell v. Hodges. The ruling overturned bans on same-sex marriage.

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito each authored a dissent.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Amendment 1 was as follows:

“

"There is currently no constitutional provision regarding marriage. There is a statute, enacted by the legislature, that defines marriage as a civil contract between two persons who are of opposite sex and declares all other marriages to be contrary to public policy and void. A vote for this proposition would amend the Kansas constitution to incorporate into it the definition of marriage as a civil contract between one man and one woman only and the declaration that any other marriage is contrary to public policy and void. The proposed constitutional amendment also would prohibit the state from recognizing any other legal relationship that would entitle the parties in the relationship to the rights or incidents of marriage. A vote against this proposition would not amend the constitution, in which case the current statute that defines marriage would remain unchanged but could be amended by future acts of the legislature or modified by judicial interpretation."

”

Support

Arguments

• Paul E Barkley, senior pastor of Ashland Community Church: "The opponents of the amendment falsely argue that its passage will deny existing rights to heterosexual couples in common-law marriages, heterosexual couples living together, children taking care of elderly parents or any relationship in which domestic partner benefits are currently provided. This is absolutely false! The amendment does not deny any existing rights to homosexuals or heterosexuals. Domestic partnerships remain unchanged. They are determined by employers and insurers, not by the state."

Opposition

Arguments

• Nancy and Page Twiss: "Part B says ‘... no relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to rights and incidents of marriage.’ Married couples would be ‘more equal’ than others. Already, some companies express doubt about continuing to offer domestic partner benefits if the amendment passes. In states with similar amendments, Part B is leading to denials of citizen rights, questions only courts can answer, anguish in affected families and costly legal attempts to safeguard and regain rights."

Background

Related measures

See also: History of same-sex marriage ballot measures

Between 1998 and 2012, voters in 30 states approved ballot measures that defined marriage as between one male and one female or otherwise prohibited same-sex marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated bans on same-sex marriage in the case Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

• 1998: Alaska
• 2000: Nebraska
• 2002: Nevada
• 2004: Arkansas
• 2004: Georgia
• 2004: Kentucky
• 2004: Louisiana
• 2004: Michigan
• 2004: Mississippi
• 2004: Missouri
• 2004: Montana
• 2004: North Dakota
• 2004: Ohio
• 2004: Oklahoma
• 2004: Oregon
• 2004: Utah
• 2005: Kansas
• 2005: Texas
• 2006: Alabama
• 2006: Colorado
• 2006: Idaho
• 2006: South Carolina
• 2006: South Dakota
• 2006: Tennessee
• 2006: Virginia
• 2006: Wisconsin
• 2008: Arizona
• 2008: California
• 2008: Florida
• 2012: North Carolina

Path to the ballot

In Kansas, for the legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, a two-thirds majority was needed in both chambers of the state legislature. This amounted to 27 votes in the Senate and 84 votes in the House, assuming no vacancies.

See also

2005 Measures

• 2005 Measures
• LGBTQ issues on the ballot
• Family-related policy on the ballot
• 2005 legislative sessions

Kansas

• Kansas ballot measures
• Kansas ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Campaign donations pro and con
• Kansas Marriage Amendment
• Kansans easily pass marriage measure
• Kansas election statistics (From the drop-down menu, choose "2005 Constitutional Amendment Results by County (Excel)")