What Is 2006 South Carolina Amendment 1

Overview

2006 South Carolina Amendment 1 was a state constitutional amendment approved by voters to define marriage strictly as a union between one man and one woman. This measure aimed to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage in South Carolina, even if future court rulings or legislative actions attempted to permit it.

The amendment was part of a broader national movement in the early 2000s to codify traditional definitions of marriage in state constitutions. It passed overwhelmingly during the November 7, 2006, general election, reflecting prevailing social attitudes at the time.

• Effective Date: The amendment took effect immediately upon certification of the election results on November 8, 2006, becoming part of the state constitution.
• Legal Language: It added Section 15 to Article XVII of the South Carolina Constitution, stating that only marriages between a man and a woman are valid or recognized.
• Out-of-State Marriages: The amendment explicitly declared that same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions would not be recognized in South Carolina.
• Voter Support: Approximately 78% of voters supported the amendment, with over 1.2 million votes in favor and about 337,000 opposed.
• Legislative Sponsorship: The amendment was proposed by the South Carolina General Assembly, fulfilling a requirement that constitutional changes originate in the legislature before voter referendum.

How It Works

The amendment functioned as a constitutional barrier to same-sex marriage and related legal recognition in South Carolina. By embedding the definition of marriage into the state constitution, it made it significantly harder to overturn through legislation or judicial interpretation alone.

• Term: The amendment defined "marriage" as only between a man and a woman. This definition legally excluded same-sex couples from marrying or having their unions recognized.
• Constitutional Supremacy: As a constitutional provision, it overrode any conflicting state statutes or local ordinances that might have allowed same-sex unions.
• Judicial Impact: Courts in South Carolina were required to interpret marriage laws in accordance with the amendment, limiting legal challenges based on equality or due process arguments.
• Recognition of Out-of-State Unions: Even if a same-sex couple married legally in another state, South Carolina was not obligated to recognize their marriage under this amendment.
• Barrier to Reform: Any attempt to repeal or modify the amendment required another statewide referendum, making legal change a lengthy and difficult process.
• Legal Precedent: The amendment was rendered unenforceable after the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Comparison at a Glance

Below is a comparison of South Carolina's Amendment 1 with similar measures in other states and federal law:

This table illustrates how South Carolina’s stance aligned with a wave of state-level bans during the mid-2000s. While many states adopted similar constitutional amendments, federal intervention in 2015 ultimately invalidated them all. South Carolina’s amendment remained on the books but has been unenforceable since the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling.

Why It Matters

Although no longer legally enforceable, Amendment 1 remains a significant marker of social and legal history in South Carolina. It reflects the political climate of the mid-2000s and the intense national debate over marriage equality.

• Historical Significance: The amendment captures a pivotal moment in LGBTQ+ rights history, showing widespread public resistance to same-sex marriage at the time.
• Legal Precedent: It demonstrated how states used constitutional amendments to resist social change, a strategy later overturned by federal courts.
• Impact on LGBTQ+ Communities: For over a decade, the amendment denied legal protections and recognition to same-sex couples in South Carolina.
• Judicial Evolution: The nullification of the amendment after Obergefell highlights the supremacy of federal constitutional rights over state laws.
• Ongoing Relevance: Some legal scholars argue that remnants of such amendments could be used in future debates over civil unions or religious exemptions.
• Path to Repeal: While unenforceable, formally removing the amendment from the constitution would require another voter referendum, which has not yet occurred.

Today, same-sex marriage is fully legal in South Carolina, but the presence of Amendment 1 in the state constitution serves as a reminder of the evolving nature of civil rights and constitutional law in the United States.