Truth or Consequences: The Effects of Constitutional Amendments on Marriage in Ohio, Michigan, Missouri and Utah
1/1/2005, Human Rights Campaign
Executive Summary
In 2004, voters in 13 states were asked to ratify state constitutional amendments that prohibit marriage for same-sex couples. According to a new report by the Human Rights Campaign, these amendments are having consequences that go well beyond the supposed "simple" definition of marriage that proponents of these amendments claimed was the intent.
Whether or not voters intended to do so, the report documents how these amendments may actually ban all unmarried couples – gay and straight – from enjoying the most basic protections of family life, such as access to health insurance, protection from physical abuse and the right to have custody agreements upheld.
By using vague and undefined language, the proponents of these amendments have given judges, lawyers and others wide discretion to interpret their meaning. The report highlights four states – Missouri, Utah, Ohio and Michigan – where governmental entities and/or individuals have interpreted the constitutional amendments to:
* Deny domestic partner benefits, such as health insurance, to unmarried couples – same- and different-sex.
* Argue that domestic violence laws do not apply to different-sex unmarried couples.
* Attempt to void a custody agreement between a same-sex couple.
These examples suggest that the amendments could be used to restrict benefits and protections to all unmarried couples across an even wider range of areas of family life, including property ownership, powers of attorney, pension benefits, adoption and hospital visitation.
Truth or Consequences: The Effects of Constitutional Amendments on Marriage in Ohio, Michigan, Missouri and Utah pdf (0.13MB)
*PDFs require Adobe Acrobat. Download and install free Adobe Acrobat Reader