2004 Georgia Amendment 1

Georgia Constitutional Amendment 1 of 2004, is an amendment to the Georgia Constitution that previously made it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 76% of the voters.
The text of the amendment states:
The amendment was challenged in court. On May 16, 2006, a lower court in Georgia struck down the amendment, but on July 7, 2006, the Supreme Court of Georgia overturned the lower court thus leaving the amendment as part of the Georgia Constitution.
As a result of the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges Amendment 1 was declared unconstitutional on June 26, 2015, legalizing same-sex marriage in Georgia.

Pre-decision opinion polls

Date of opinion poll	Conducted by	Sample size	In favor	Against	Undecided	Margin	Margin of Error	Source
Before October 26, 2004	The Atlanta Journal-Constitution / WSB-TV	?		?	?	?	?
Early October 2004	The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Poll	800 registered voters		20%	5%	55% pro	±3.5%	The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
September 2004	University of Georgia Survey Research Center	1,000 respondents		20-25%	Not specified	50% pro	±4%	University of Georgia Survey Research Center

Results

Effects

The amendment constitutionally banned same-sex marriages, which were never recognized by the state and was statutorily banned since 1996, and civil unions or civil union equivalents, which were never recognized by the state. This preempted the state judiciary from requiring the state to legally recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions or civil union equivalents and preempted the Georgia General Assembly from enacting a statute legalizing same-sex marriages or civil unions or civil union equivalents. Domestic partnerships in Georgia, legal in 2 counties and 5 municipalities at the time, were unaffected by the amendment.

Lawsuits

''O'Kelley v. Cox''

O'Kelley v. Cox was a case filed on July 23, 2004, concerning the constitutionality of a proposed amendment to the Georgia Constitution that sought to ban same-sex marriage. The case focused on whether the proposed amendment complied with the state's single-subject rule for constitutional amendments. On September 29, 2004, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell denied the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief and dismissed the complaint, ruling that the proposed amendment was valid and could appear on the ballot. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Georgia Supreme Court. The Georgia Supreme Court issued a 5-2 ruling on October 26, 2004, upholding the trial court's decision. The court ruled that the proposed amendment did not violate the single-subject rule of the Georgia Constitution. The decision allowed the amendment to proceed to the ballot, where it was subsequently approved by voters in November 2004.

''Perdue v. O'Kelley''

Perdue v. O'Kelley was a legal case filed on March 10, 2006, which challenged the validity of Constitutional Amendment 1. The plaintiffs in Perdue v. O'Kelley argued that the amendment violated the Georgia Constitution's single-subject rule, which mandates that amendments must address only one issue. They contended that the amendment's broad language encompassed multiple issues and was therefore unconstitutional. On May 17, 2006, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell ruled that the amendment violated the single-subject rule of the Georgia Constitution. Judge Russell determined that the amendment addressed more than one subject, which was not permitted under Georgia law. However, the court's decision was primarily concerned with procedural issues rather than the substantive constitutionality of the amendment itself. Her ruling did not impact the statutory prohibition on same-sex marriage in Georgia, which remained in effect. The ruling was appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court. On July 6, 2006, the Georgia Supreme Court, in a 6-0 ruling, with Justice Harold D. Melton not participating, reversed the lower court's decision and upheld the amendment. The court ruled that the amendment did not violate the single-subject rule and that it was valid under the Georgia Constitution. The decision allowed the amendment take effect again.