North Carolina Amendment 1

{{Short description|2012 state amendment}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox referendum
| name = North Carolina Amendment 1
| yes = 1317178 
| no = 840802
| total =2,157,980 
| electorate = 6296759
| map = 2012 North Carolina Amendment 1 results map by county.svg
| mapdivision = county
| mapcaption = 
{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
'''Yes''' 
{{legend|#28497c|80–90% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#47729E|70–80% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#7D9CBB|60–70% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#B6C8D9|50–60% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{col-2}}
'''No'''
{{legend|#8B8B54|70–80% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#BCBC83|60–70% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#DEDEBD|50–60% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{col-end}}
| notes = .
|title='''North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage Amendment'''|date=May 8, 2012|country=North Carolina}}

{{ElectionsNC}}

'''North Carolina Amendment 1''' (often referred to as simply '''Amendment 1''') was a [[legislatively referred constitutional amendment]] in North Carolina that (until overruled in federal court) [[Constitutional amendment|amended]] the [[Constitution of North Carolina]] to [[U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions|prohibit the state from recognizing]] or performing [[same-sex marriages]] or [[civil unions]]. The amendment did not prohibit [[domestic partnership]] agreements, but defined male–female marriage as "the only domestic legal union" considered valid or recognized in the state.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://sogpubs.unc.edu/electronicversions/pdfs/pelb39.pdf |title=Amendment One, North Carolina Public Employers, and Domestic Partner Benefits |access-date=2013-06-07 |archive-date=2012-09-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120905194155/http://sogpubs.unc.edu/electronicversions/pdfs/pelb39.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>[http://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/files/Limited%20Impacted%20of%20Amendment%20One.pdf The legal impact of Amendment One] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140506215117/http://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/files/Limited%20Impacted%20of%20Amendment%20One.pdf |date=2014-05-06 }}, [[ACLU]] of North Carolina</ref>
On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61% to 39%, with a voter turnout of 35%.<ref>{{cite news| author = Weiner, Rachel | title=North Carolina Passes Gay Marriage Ban Amendment One|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/north-carolina-passes-gay-marriage-ban-amendment-one/2012/05/08/gIQAHYpfBU_blog.html |access-date = September 25, 2019 |newspaper=The Washington Post |date= May 8, 2012}}</ref> On May 23, 2012, the amendment took effect.<ref>[https://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/blogpost/11133051/?d_full_comments=1&d_comments_page=1&d_comment_order=forward&comment_order=reverse Constitutional amendment certified as election fraud questions winnowed]</ref>

State law had already defined marriage as being between a man and a woman prior to its passage.<ref>[http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_51/Article_1.html "NC General Statutes, Chapter 51"].  [[North Carolina General Assembly]].</ref> Amendment 1 was the last state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to be passed in the United States via voter referendum, as well as the shortest-lived: it was found unconstitutional in federal court in October 2014 after then-[[North Carolina Attorney General|Attorney General]] [[Roy Cooper]] declined to further defend it.

==Full text==
ARTICLE XIV, Section 6 of the Constitution of North Carolina, as amended, states:<ref name="state">{{cite web|url=http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html|website=ncga.state.nc.us|title=Full text of the North Carolina State Constitution|access-date=February 24, 2021}}</ref>

{{blockquote|Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.  This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.}}

==Legislative approval==
[[File:State constitutional prohibitions on same-sex marriage on 22 May 2012.svg|300px|right|thumb|State constitutional prohibitions on same-sex marriage in the United States on 22 May 2012]]
Senate Bill 514 was introduced in the 2011 legislative session North Carolina.<ref name="billtext">{{cite web|title=Senate Bill 514|url=http://ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/Senate/PDF/S514v3.pdf | format = [[Portable Document Format|PDF format]]}}</ref>  Sponsored by [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] State Senator [[Peter Brunstetter]], the bill was passed by the [[North Carolina General Assembly]] in September 2011.<ref>{{cite web|title=General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2011 SB514|url=http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/voteHistory/RollCallVoteTranscript.pl?sSession=2011&sChamber=S&RCS=933| publisher = [[North Carolina General Assembly]] |access-date= September 14, 2011}}</ref>

Final voting on SB 514 was as follows:
{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-break}}
In the [[North Carolina House of Representatives|House]]:
*75 Aye
*42 No
*2 Not Voting
*1 Excused Absence
{{Col-break}}
In the [[North Carolina Senate|Senate]]:
*30 Aye
*16 No
*4 Excused Absences
{{col-end}}

Ten House [[North Carolina Democratic Party|Democrats]] voted "aye": [[William Brisson]], [[James W. Crawford, Jr.]], [[Elmer Floyd]], [[Ken Goodman (politician)|Ken Goodman]], [[Charles Graham (American politician)|Charles Graham]], [[Dewey L. Hill]], [[Frank McGuirt]], [[William C. Owens, Jr.]], [[Garland E. Pierce]] and [[Timothy L. Spear]]. All House Republicans voted "aye" except for those who did not vote: [[D. Craig Horn]], [[Chuck McGrady]] and [[Glen Bradley]]. All Senate Democrats voted "no" except for those who did not vote: [[Eric L. Mansfield]] (who publicly opposed the bill but was absent due to a planned wedding anniversary trip),<ref>Pitts, Myron (September 15, 2011).  [http://fayobserver.com/articles/2011/09/15/1122865?sac=Col "Pitts: Mansfield Defends Putting His Marriage First"] {{Webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20120713174405/http://fayobserver.com/articles/2011/09/15/1122865?sac=Col |date=2012-07-13 }}. ''[[The Fayetteville Observer]]''. Retrieved May 9, 2012.</ref> [[Michael P. Walters]] and [[Stan White (politician)|Stan White]]. All Senate Republicans voted "aye", except for one who did not vote, [[Fletcher Hartsell]].<ref name="Bill Lookup">{{cite web|title=Senate Bill 514 / S.L. 2011-409|url=http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=S514&votesToView=all| publisher = [[North Carolina General Assembly]]  |access-date= September 14, 2011}}</ref>

== Bill information ==
The [[long title]] of Senate Bill 514 is: "An Act to Amend the Constitution to Provide That Marriage Between One Man and One Woman is the Only Domestic Legal Union That Shall Be Valid or Recognized in This State."

The bill proposed to add a new section to article XIV, which covers miscellaneous provisions. The sections of the bill were:<ref name="billtext" />

*Section 1

"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

*Section 2
Specifies that the amendment shall be submitted to voters, and defines the ballot text.

*Section 3
Specifies that a [[Majority|simple majority]] vote is required for approval.

*Sections 4 and 5
Specify that the amendment will become effective when it is certified by the [[North Carolina Secretary of State|Secretary of State]].

==Potential effects==
In a study by Maxine Eichner, Barbara Fedders, Holning Lau, and Rachel Blunk of the [[University of North Carolina School of Law]], the authors discussed how the wording in the proposed amendment could have legal implications beyond banning marriage between same-sex couples.<ref name="Potential Legal Impact">{{cite web | url=http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/faculty/marriageamendment/dlureportnov8.pdf |title= Potential Legal Impact of the Proposed Domestic Legal Union Amendment to the North Carolina Constitution| format = [[Portable Document Format|PDF format]] | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120424184212/http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/faculty/marriageamendment/dlureportnov8.pdf | archive-date= April 24, 2012}}</ref> A white paper authored by Lynn Buzzard, William A. Woodruff, and Gregory Wallace of [[Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law|Campbell Law School]] disagreed with many of those claims.<ref>April 2012. [http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Campbell-White-Paper.pdf Campbell White Paper] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120519041710/http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Campbell-White-Paper.pdf |date=2012-05-19 }} ''voteformarriagenc.com'' Retrieved May 10, 2012.</ref>

===Employee benefits===
Some said that all unmarried couples, both same-sex and opposite-sex, and their children that are receiving domestic-partner benefits as public employees would no longer be eligible for those benefits under this amendment.<ref name="amendment one">{{cite web|title=Marriage Amendment Would Affect Many People, Panel Says|url=http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2012/apr/16/wsmet01-marriage-amendment-would-affect-many-peopl-ar-2166456/|work=[[Winston-Salem Journal]]|access-date=April 23, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120420004132/http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2012/apr/16/wsmet01-marriage-amendment-would-affect-many-peopl-ar-2166456/|archive-date=April 20, 2012|url-status=dead|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="Legal Effects">{{cite web | url=http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/faculty/marriageamendment/updatedamendentpointsfinal.pdf|title= What You Should Know About the Legal Effects of Amendment One| format = [[Portable Document Format|PDF format]] | date= February 3, 2012 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120329110429/http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/faculty/marriageamendment/updatedamendentpointsfinal.pdf| url-status=live| archive-date= March 29, 2012}}</ref> The second sentence in the amendment sought to address this issue by continuing to allow private-party contracts between employees and employers. For example, a private company could agree to extend health benefits to employees and their partners.<ref name="Catholic Voice">{{cite web | url=http://www.catholicvoicenc.org/Assets/NCMarriageProtectionAmendment-FactSheetFINALon12.1.11.pdf| format = [[Portable Document Format|PDF format]] | title= North Carolina Marriage Protection Amendment Fact Sheet | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141015225548/http://www.catholicvoicenc.org/Assets/NCMarriageProtectionAmendment-FactSheetFINALon12.1.11.pdf| url-status=dead| archive-date= October 15, 2014}}</ref> However, since "domestic legal union" was untested language in the courts, the issue was considered likely to face litigation to determine what the actual meaning would be and how it would be implemented.<ref name="Understanding">{{cite web| url= http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=225626| title= Understanding North Carolina's Proposed Amendment One| date= April 18, 2012| author= Geary, Mark| archive-url= https://archive.today/20130121145624/http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=225626| archive-date= January 21, 2013| url-status= dead}}</ref>

===Legal protections===
In addition to restricting benefits to couples in domestic partnerships, the amendment could have also stripped protections for unmarried couples such as domestic violence and stalking protections.<ref name="amendment one" /><ref name="Legal Effects"/> If the courts had determined that the language used in the amendment invalidates protections for unmarried couples it could have harmed domestic-violence protections for that population.<ref name="Same-Sex Marriage">{{cite web | url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/-same-sex-marriage-north-carolina-amendment-1_n_1408756.html|title= Same-Sex Marriage: North Carolina's Proposed Ban, Amendment One, Could Create 'Legal Chaos'| date= April 9, 2012| author= Shapiro, Lila | work = [[The Huffington Post]] | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120410230217/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/-same-sex-marriage-north-carolina-amendment-1_n_1408756.html| url-status=live| archive-date= April 10, 2012}}</ref> After passing a similar constitutional amendment in Ohio, several courts ruled that domestic violence protections did not apply to unmarried couples and cases were dismissed or told not to press charges.<ref name="Same-Sex Marriage"/> The courts could have determined that validation of unmarried couples domestic legal union status would violate the amendment.<ref name= "Potential Legal Impact"/> However, the counter argument was that North Carolina's domestic-violence statutes were better defined and included protections for unmarried couples.<ref name="Fact and Fiction">{{cite web |url=http://crdaily.com/2012/04/amendment-one-fact-and-fiction/|title=Amendment One – Fact and Fiction |date= April 20, 2012|author= Darst, Brittany | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160202161443/http://crdaily.com/2012/04/amendment-one-fact-and-fiction/|url-status=dead| archive-date=February 2, 2016}}</ref>

North Carolina Statute 50B-1, Domestic Violence, states:

{{blockquote|(b)        For purposes of this section, the term "personal relationship" means a relationship wherein the parties involved

::(1)        Are current or former spouses;

::(2)        Are persons of opposite sex who live together or have lived together;

::(3)        Are related as parents and children, including others acting in loco parentis to a minor child, or as grandparents and grandchildren. For purposes of this subdivision, an aggrieved party may not obtain an order of protection against a child or grandchild under the age of 16;

::(4)        Have a child in common;

::(5)        Are current or former household members;

::(6)        Are persons of the opposite sex who are in a dating relationship or have been in a dating relationship. For purposes of this subdivision, a dating relationship is one wherein the parties are romantically involved over time and on a continuous basis during the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary fraternization between persons in a business or social context is not a dating relationship.<ref name="Domestic Violence Statute">{{cite web | url=http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_50b/GS_50B-1.html|title= Chapter 50B| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110809093919/http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_50B/GS_50B-1.html | url-status=live| archive-date= August 9, 2011}}</ref>}}

Adoption and child-visitation protections were also in question. While North Carolina only allows adoption by one unmarried adult,<ref name="Fact and Fiction"/> there are cases where children are adopted by two unmarried adults (including same-sex couples) in other states and are now living in North Carolina. Since those relationships would not have been recognized under Amendment One, there were potentially serious consequences. In Potential Legal Impacts of the Proposed Same Sex Marriage Amendment, the authors concluded that in child-custody disputes "judges may interpret [amendment one] as an expression of public policy against all non-marital relationships. This interpretation may have caused judges to view such relationships as having a ''per se'' negative impact on a child, and fashion custody orders accordingly.<ref name="Potential Legal Impact"/> They also said that in custody disputes between a parent and non-parent, the courts could decide that one parent's relationship is impermissible since it would validate a domestic legal union other than heterosexual marriage.<ref name="Potential Legal Impact"/> As with the other protections in question it seemed that the courts would have to decide what the actual interpretation and implementation will be in this area.

Other areas of protection that were under question included hospital visitation, emergency medicals decisions, and disposition of deceased partner's remains.<ref name="amendment one" /><ref name="Legal Effects"/> Although there are legal documents that can help protect medical and financial security (power of attorney, living will, medical power of attorney), these could have been contested in court based on the argument that they recognize a domestic legal union between the two parties.<ref name="Potential Legal Impact"/> Issues in estate planning could have arisen through increased litigation contesting wills of unmarried individuals, particularly those in same-sex relationships.<ref name="Potential Legal Impact"/> Again, the courts could have ruled that any recognition of a domestic legal union between unmarried partners would be unconstitutional and therefore rule those wills and trusts invalid.<ref name="Potential Legal Impact"/>

===Economics===
In addition to legal implications, there were concerns that the amendment would harm economic development and vitality. Some felt that business's employee recruitment and retention would be hurt if the most talented prospects did not feel that North Carolina was progressive or representative of their beliefs.<ref name="Biz Owners">{{cite web | url=http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2012/04/19/biz-owners-amendment-one-could-harm-business-economic-development/|title= Biz Owners: Amendment One Could Harm Business Economic Development| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120503021843/http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2012/04/19/biz-owners-amendment-one-could-harm-business-economic-development/| url-status=dead| archive-date= May 3, 2012}}</ref> Many [[Fortune 500]] companies have implemented policies protecting employees against discrimination based on sexual orientation, which would not be affected by such legislation.<ref name="Biz Owners"/>

===Public knowledge===
An April 2012 [[Public Policy Polling]] found that only 40% of North Carolina voters actually knew that Amendment 1 bans both same-sex marriage and civil unions, and among those voters who do know the effects of Amendment 1, they opposed it with 60% against and 38% in favor. Among the 27% of voters who thought Amendment 1 banned same-sex marriage only, they supported it with 72% in favor and 27% against, and with voters who didn't know what Amendment 1 did, they supported it with 64% in favor and 28% against. Among North Carolina voters who were informed about the effects Amendment 1 banning same-sex marriage and civil unions and then asked how they would vote, only 38% continued to support it, 46% against it, and 16% were unsure. When combined those who do and don't know the effects of Amendment 1 it found that 55% would vote for it, 41% would vote against, and 4% were unsure. It also found that 55% of North Carolina voters support legal recognition of same-sex couples with 27% supporting same-sex marriage, 28% supporting civil unions, 41% oppose any legal recognition of same-sex couples, and 4% were unsure. When asked what the effects of Amendment 1 would be, 40% of voters thought that Amendment 1 banned same-sex marriage and civil unions, 27% thought it banned same-sex marriage only, 26% were unsure, and 7% thought it legalized same-sex marriage.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_050112.pdf|title= Amendment One still up 14 points in N.C.| date= May 1, 2012|access-date= June 7, 2013}}</ref>

== Election spending ==
The campaigns were fueled by more than $1,000,000 in spending by the pro-amendment coalition Vote For Marriage NC and $2,000,000 in spending by the anti-amendment group Coalition to Protect North Carolina Families.<ref>Dalesio, Emery P. (May 7, 2012).  [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/north-carolina-amendment-one_n_1498342.html "North Carolina Amendment One: Proposed Gay Marriage Ban Draws National Attention"].  [[Associated Press]] (via ''[[The Huffington Post]]'').  Retrieved May 9, 2012.</ref><ref>{{dead link|date=May 2012}} Gordon, Michael (May 9, 2012).  [https://web.archive.org/web/20120509181953/http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/05/08/3227863/amendment-one-nc-voters-approve.html Amendment One: N.C. Voters Approve Measure To Block Same-Sex Marriage"].  ''[[The Charlotte Observer]]''. Retrieved May 9, 2012.</ref> Big donors, making more than $10,000 contributions, were the main source of funds. The [[Human Rights Campaign]], a pro-gay rights group, gave more than $256,000 to the Coalition to Protect NC Families while the [[National Organization for Marriage]] (NOM) contributed more than $427,000 to Vote For Marriage NC.<ref>Blumenthal, Paul (May 9, 2012). [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/amendment-one-nc-donors_n_1501265.html "Amendment One N.C.: Anti-Gay Marriage Donors"]. ''[[The Huffington Post]]''. Retrieved May 9, 2012.</ref>

==Pre-decision opinion polls==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of opinion poll
!Conducted by
![[Sample size]]
!In favor
!Against
!Undecided
!Margin
!Margin of Error
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | October 15–19, 2009 || [[Elon University|Elon University Poll]] || 620 || 43% || {{No|'''50%'''|align=left}} || 5% || 7% con || ±4%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | August 16–18, 2010 || [[Civitas Institute|National Research, Inc.]] || unaffiliated likely general election voters || {{Yes|'''50%'''|align=left}} || 43% || 7% || 7% pro || ±4.9%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | February 20–24, 2011 || Elon University Poll || 467 || 38% || {{No|'''56%'''|align=left}} || 5% || 8% con || ±4.6%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | August 15–16, 2011 || National Research, Inc. || 400 unaffiliated general election voters || {{Yes|'''49%'''|align=left}} || 43% || 7% || 6% pro || ±4.9%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | September 25–29, 2011 || Elon University Poll || 594 || 39% || {{No|'''56%'''|align=left}} || 5% || 7% con || ±4.02%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | September 30-October 3, 2011 || rowspan=2 colspan=1 | [[Public Policy Polling]] || 760 registered voters || {{Yes|'''61%'''|align=left}} || 34% || 5% || 17% pro || ±4.26%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | October 27–31, 2011 || 615 registered voters || {{Yes|'''59%'''|align=left}} || 35% || 6% || 24% pro || ±4%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | October 31-November 2, 2011 || Elon University Poll || 529 || 37% || {{No|'''57%'''|align=left}} || 6% || 20% con || ±4.26%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | December 1–4, 2011 || rowspan=2 colspan=1 | Public Policy Polling || 865 registered voters || {{Yes|'''58%'''|align=left}} || 32% || 10% || 26% pro ||±3.3%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | January 5–8, 2012 || 780 registered voters || {{Yes|'''56%'''|align=left}} || 34% || 10% || 22% pro || ±3.5%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | March 26–29, 2012 || Elon University Poll || 534 || 32% || {{No|'''61%'''|align=left}} || 6% || 29% con || 4.24%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | April 20–22, 2012 || rowspan=2 colspan=1 | Public Policy Polling || 1,139 registered voters || {{Yes|'''54%'''|align=left}} || 40% || 6% || 14% pro || ±2.9%
|-
| style="background:#f0f0f0;" | April 27–29, 2012 || 982 registered voters || {{Yes|'''55%'''|align=left}} || 41% || 4% || 14% pro || ±3.1%
|}

==Results==
{{Referendum
| title = Amendment 1<ref name="clarityelections">{{cite web|url=http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/36596/85942/en/summary.html|website=results.enr.clarityelections.com|title=North Carolina Board of Elections|access-date=February 24, 2021}}</ref>
| yes = 1,317,178
| yespct = 61.04
| no = 840,802
| nopct = 38.96
| valid = 
| validpct = 
| invalid = 
| invalidpct = 
| total = 2,157,980
| turnoutpct = 34.66
| electorate = 6,296,759
}}

On May 8, 2012, at 9:00 pm ET the polls closed. At 9:11 pm ET, with 30 percent of the precincts reporting, 43 percent of the vote against and 57 percent of voters approve of the Amendment 1. At 9:15 pm ET, the [[Associated Press]] projected, with 35 percent of the vote counted and 58 percent of those casting ballots voted in favor of the amendment, that Amendment 1 had passed.<ref>[https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/05/08/152297983/gay-marriage-referendum-drives-high-turnout-in-north-carolina Gay Marriage Ban Passes In North Carolina]</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/AP/status/200031180089868290 North Carolina Amendment 1]</ref>

Of the [[List of counties in North Carolina|100 counties of North Carolina]], only [[Buncombe County, North Carolina|Buncombe]] (home to [[Asheville]]), [[Orange County, North Carolina|Orange]] (home to [[Chapel Hill, North Carolina|Chapel Hill]]), [[Durham County, North Carolina|Durham]] (home to the city of [[Durham, North Carolina|Durham]]), [[Wake County, North Carolina|Wake]] (home to [[Raleigh, North Carolina|Raleigh]]), [[Mecklenburg County, North Carolina|Mecklenburg]] (home to [[Charlotte, North Carolina|Charlotte]]), [[Chatham County, North Carolina|Chatham]], [[Watauga County, North Carolina|Watauga]] (home to [[Boone, North Carolina|Boone]] and [[Appalachian State University]]), and [[Dare County, North Carolina|Dare]] voted against Amendment 1. Of the eight counties that voted against Amendment 1, six of them would vote for Barack Obama in the [[2012 United States presidential election|2012 election]], while Watauga County and Dare County voted for Mitt Romney.

== Timing of the ballot ==
The vote on Amendment 1 was held during the lower-turnout North Carolina primary election rather than during a general election when voter turnout is typically higher. Furthermore, whereas the Republican primary was an active contest, the Democratic primary was effectively uncontested and thus had an even further reduced turnout of the Democratic electorate relative to what might have occurred in a hotly contested primary.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Saletan |first1=William |title=North Carolina Voters Have Already Abandoned Thom Tillis' Position on Gay Marriage |url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/10/thom-tillis-doesnt-want-to-discuss-gay-marriage-the-gop-senate-candidate-knows-that-north-carolinians-have-changed-their-minds-about-marriage-equality.html |website=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |language=en |date=10 October 2014}}</ref>

==Response by President Barack Obama==
The day after Amendment 1 passed its public vote, [[President of the United States|US President]] [[Barack Obama]] expressed disappointment in the outcome<ref name="cnn">{{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/|title=Obama announces he supports same-sex marriage - CNNPolitics|website=cnn.com|date=9 May 2012 |access-date=February 24, 2021}}</ref> and announced his support for same-sex marriage.<ref name="whitehouse">{{cite web|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2012/05/10/obama-supports-same-sex-marriage|work=[[whitehouse.gov]]|title=President Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage|date=10 May 2012 |via=[[NARA|National Archives]]|access-date=February 24, 2021}}</ref><ref name="nytimes">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us/politics/obama-says-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal.html|title=Obama Says Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal|website=The New York Times|date=9 May 2012 |access-date=February 24, 2021|last1=Calmes |first1=Jackie |last2=Baker |first2=Peter }}</ref><ref name="wsj">{{cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304070304577394332545729926|title=Obama Says He Supports Gay Marriage|newspaper=Wall Street Journal|date=9 May 2012 |access-date=February 24, 2021|last1=Lee |first1=Carol E. }}</ref>

==Legal challenges==
On July 28, 2014, the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit]] affirmed a lower court ruling in Virginia in favor of the freedom to marry, declaring that banning same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional under the [[U.S. Constitution]]. The decision affirmed the February 13 ruling from U.S. District Court Judge [[Arenda Wright Allen]] in ''Bostic v. Schaefer'', in which same-sex couples sought the freedom to marry and respect for their marriages legally performed in other states. On October 6, the United States Supreme Court denied review of this case, meaning that same-sex couples would have the freedom to marry in Virginia.

Since the 4th Circuit also covers Maryland, West Virginia, North and South Carolina, the decision by the Supreme Court to refuse review meant the 4th Circuit decision stood as case law in the other states. With the exception of Maryland, where same-sex marriage was already legal, court cases were promptly filed to strike down various state laws and amendments.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.freedomtomarry.org/litigation/entry/4thCircuit |title=Marriage at the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals &#124; Freedom to Marry |access-date=October 10, 2014 |archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20141105224731/http://www.freedomtomarry.org/litigation/entry/4thCircuit |archive-date=November 5, 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Shortly after 5&nbsp;p.m. on October 10, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge [[Max O. Cogburn, Jr.]] in Asheville issued a ruling in the case of ''General Synod of the United Church of Christ, et al. v. Drew Reisinger, Register of Deeds of Buncombe County'', declaring the amendment unconstitutional, and also declaring unconstitutional "and any other source of state law that operates to deny same-sex couples the right to marry in the State of North Carolina or prohibits recognition of same-sex marriages lawfully solemnized in other States, Territories, or a District of the United States, or threatens clergy or other officiants who solemnize the union of same-sex couples with civil or criminal penalties".<ref name="news-record">{{cite web|url=http://www.news-record.com/news/amendment-one-struck-down/article_40763ce2-5099-11e4-84c9-001a4bcf6878.html|website=news-record.com|title=news/amendment-one-struck-down/article_40763ce2-5099-11e4-84c9-001a4bcf6878|date=October 10, 2014 |access-date=February 24, 2021}}</ref><ref>[http://media.charlotteobserver.com/smedia/2014/10/10/17/42/nUiNa.So.138.pdf Memorandum of Decision and Order from U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina]{{dead link|date=February 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

[[Chris Sgro]], executive director of [[Equality NC]], an [[LGBT rights]] advocacy organization in North Carolina, said "Today's ruling allowing loving, same-sex couples to marry across North Carolina is a historic moment for our state", and said that "With it, we celebrate with so many North Carolinians who have worked tirelessly over decades to change hearts, minds, and unequal laws in the state we call home. Love won and the barriers to it are done."<ref name="newsobserver">{{cite web|url=http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/10/10/4222691_the-wait-for-gay-marriage-in-north.html?sp=%2F99%2F100%2F&rh=1|website=newsobserver.com|title=www.newsobserver.com/2014/10/10/4222691_the-wait-for-gay-marriage-in-north.html?sp=/99/100/&rh=1|access-date=February 24, 2021|archive-date=December 19, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141219024214/http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/10/10/4222691_the-wait-for-gay-marriage-in-north.html?sp=%2F99%2F100%2F&rh=1|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Shortly after Cogburn's ruling, the Registers of Deeds in several North Carolina counties reopened (or had previously extended hours in anticipation of the ruling) to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples that had been waiting for several days.

==See also==
{{Portal|Law|LGBT|United States}}
*[[North Carolina General Assembly of 2011–2012]]
*[[Recognition of same-sex unions in North Carolina]]
*[[Constitution of North Carolina]]
{{clear}}

== References ==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==External links==
*[http://www.protectallncfamilies.org/home Coalition to Protect All NC Families] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120506231925/http://www.protectallncfamilies.org/home |date=2012-05-06 }}
*[http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/ Vote For Marriage NC]

{{U.S. same-sex unions ballot measures}}

[[Category:2012 in LGBT history]]
[[Category:2012 in North Carolina]]
[[Category:2012 North Carolina elections]]
[[Category:LGBT history in North Carolina]]
[[Category:North Carolina law]]
[[Category:Politics of North Carolina]]
[[Category:Same-sex marriage ballot measures in the United States]]
[[Category:U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions]]
[[Category:LGBT rights in North Carolina]]