Montana CI-96, Definition of Marriage Amendment (2004)

Montana CI-96
Election date November 2, 2004
Topic Family-related policy and LGBTQ issues
Status Approved
Type Initiated constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

Montana CI-96 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in Montana on November 2, 2004. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported amending the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and only recognizing marriage as between a man and a woman in the state.

A "no" vote opposed amending the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and only recognizing marriage as between a man and a woman in the state.

Election results

Montana CI-96
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		295,070	66.56%
No		148,263	33.44%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What did this amendment do?

The measure provided that only a marriage between a man and a woman may be valid if performed in Montana, or recognized if performed in another state.

Aftermath

U.S. District Court

On November 19, 2014, [[Brian Morris|Judge Brian Morris]] of the U.S. District Court for Montana struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Morris did not place a stay on his decision, therefor legalizing same-sex marriage immediately. In his ruling, Morris argued:

“	These families, like all of us, want their children to adventure into the world without fear of violence; to achieve all that their talent and perseverance allows without fear of discrimination; and to love themselves so that they can love others. No family wants to deprive its precious children of the chance to marry the loves of their lives. Montana no longer can deprive Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples of the chance to marry their loves.	”
—Judge Brian Morris

Gov. Steve Bullock (D) issued a statement in support of the ruling. He said, "Today's decision ensures we are closer to fulfilling our promise of freedom, dignity, and equality for all Montanans. It is a day to celebrate our progress, while recognizing the qualities that bind us as Montanans: a desire to make a good life for ourselves and our families, while providing greater opportunities to the next generation." US Senators Jon Tester (D) and John Walsh (D) also applauded the court's decision.

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 CI-96 was as follows:

“

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION Montana statutes define civil marriage as between a man and a woman, and prohibit marriage between persons of the same sex. The Montana Constitution currently contains no provisions defining marriage. This initiative, effective immediately, would amend the Montana Constitution to provide that only a marriage between a man and a woman may be valid if performed in Montana, or recognized in Montana if performed in another state. [] FOR amending the Montana Constitution to provide that only a marriage between a man and a woman may be valid or recognized as a marriage. [] AGAINST amending the Montana Constitution to provide that only a marriage between a man and a woman may be valid or recognized as a marriage.

”

Support

Supporters

Officials

• State Sen. Terry Murphy (R)

Official arguments

• 2004 Montana Official Voter Guide: The time-honored, vital institution of marriage is being threatened. Homosexual activists have pushed legislatures in Montana and across the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage. Legislators have repeatedly said no because voters, by an overwhelming majority, reject same-sex marriage. Lack of legislative success has caused homosexual activists to change tactics. They now seek out activist judges who are willing to mandate same-sex marriage by judicial decree. Public policy should be decided by the people, either directly through ballot initiative, or indirectly through their elected representatives, not by activist judges. Voting yes on CI-96 places the definition of marriage in the hands of the people, rather than the courts. CI-96 will ensure that natural marriage is preserved by defining it constitutionally. Special interest groups are constantly seeking to gain special rights that infringe on the rights of the rest of society. Such special rights cost all Montanans both in dollars and in lost freedom. For instance, in this case, we could lose the freedom to teach our children as we wish. The issue of same-sex marriage will come before Montana’s courts soon. Voting yes on CI-96 allows the people to give clear direction to judges on this important issue. Voters have never legalized same-sex marriage in any state. In every instance where same-sex marriage was mandated by a court decision, the voters immediately overturned the court through ballot initiative, and then amended their state constitutions to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. If CI-96 fails, how will homosexual marriage one day affect your family? • Every public school in Montana would be required to teach your children that same-sex marriage and homosexuality are perfectly normal. Pictures in textbooks will also be changed to show same-sex marriage as normal. • Small business employers in Montana may someday be required to provide expanded health coverage, retirement and fringe benefits to same-sex “spouses” of employees. The broad subjectivity of such un-funded mandates could hurt Montana’s economy and jobs. • Your church will be legally pressured to perform same-sex weddings. When courts – as happened in Massachusetts – find same-sex marriage to be a “constitutional and fundamental human right,” homosexual activists will successfully argue that government is underwriting discrimination by offering tax exemptions to churches and synagogues that only honor natural marriage. Natural marriage is extremely important for future generations. Men and women are distinctly different. Each gender brings vitally important, and unique, elements to a child’s development. Saying that children don’t necessarily need fathers or mothers is saying that one gender or the other is unnecessary. A loving and compassionate society always aids motherless and fatherless families. Compassionate societies never intentionally create families without mothers or fathers, which is exactly what same-sex homes do. Of 193 countries, only Scandinavia and two other countries have legalized same-sex marriage. This radical departure from thousands of years of time-tested natural marriage has only occurred within the last 10 years. Let’s protect our families and children from this vast, untested, social experiment. Please vote FOR CI-96!

Opposition

Opponents

Officials

• State Rep. Tom Facey (D)

Official arguments

• 2004 Montana Official Voter Guide: Josef Kijewski volunteers in his community, contributes to the tax base, and participates in civic life. He is a “native” Montanan, as comfortable discussing politics with the governor as he is “kicking back” at a family reunion in a remote corner of Big Sky country. Josef’s ancestors moved to Montana in the 1870s and homesteaded at Brown’s Gulch, near Butte, in 1890. As for many Montana families who struggle to eke out a living and attain a first-class education, life hasn’t always been Easy Street. But when times are rough, Josef’s family is the first line of defense. Nevertheless, when it comes to civil marriage, a convict on death row has more rights than Josef. Because Josef is gay, he cannot barter all the good will in the world for a $35 marriage license – that simple document granting couples the responsibility to care for each other and the right to protect their legacies. Josef and his future partner could spend thousands of dollars on attorney fees to patch together a handful of safeguards for their home and family. But if CI-96 were to pass, the State could nullify the contractual agreements made between same-gender partners. CI-96 would limit innovative and robust companies from treating their employees equitably. And CI-96 would ban churches and their clergy from legally solemnizing these partnerships – infringing on the diverse religious beliefs of our neighbors. Montanans have designed the most remarkable Constitution in America. Our Constitution limits the State’s interference in our homes and families, and assures us that all Montanans are treated decently and fairly. The US Census counted 1,200 households headed by same-gender couples in Montana in 2000; these workers and families are an integral part of Montana’s social and economic fabric. While some constituents may feel heterosexual relations are in need of validation by a constitutional amendment, CI-96 does nothing to strengthen marriages in Montana. CI-96 will not put food on a family’s table, a health insurance card in the wallet, gas in the car, or scholarships in the mailbox. CI-96 does nothing to help military families navigate wartime pressures. CI-96 does not address the cultural trends of divorce, teen parenting, premarital cohabitation, serial marriages, overworked parents, and the encroachment of commercialization on home life. What CI-96 does do is diminish the freedom to be “let alone” that Montanans have historically treasured. CI-96 would alter the Constitution to set up one vulnerable minority group for alienation, discrimination and harassment. CI-96 directly contradicts the very intent of the Constitution, the civic spirit of our communities, and our independent heritage. For this reason, we urge our neighbors to vote No on CI-96.

Path to the ballot

In Montana, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 10% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. Montana also has a distribution requirement that requires proponents to collect signatures equal to 10% of the qualified electors in each of two-fifths (40) of the state's 100 legislative districts. A simple majority vote is required for voter approval.

The initiative was introduced by Rep. Jeff Laszloffy (R), and the signature gathering effort was supported by the Montana Family Foundation.

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

See also

2004 Measures

• 2004 Measures
• LGBTQ issues on the ballot
• Family-related policy on the ballot
• 2004 legislative sessions

Montana

• Montana ballot measures
• Montana ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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

External links

• Montana Constitutional Amendment List
• Constitutional Initiative No. 96

Footnotes

{Montana}}