Share to: share facebook share twitter share wa share telegram print page

North Carolina Amendment 1

North Carolina Amendment 1

May 8, 2012

North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage Amendment
Results
Choice
Votes %
For 1,317,178 61.04%
Against 840,802 38.96%
Valid votes 2,157,980 98.87%
Invalid or blank votes 24,695 1.13%
Total votes 2,182,675 100.00%
Registered voters/turnout 6,296,759 34.27%

[1][2]

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) amended the Constitution of North Carolina to 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.[3][4] On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61% to 39%, with a voter turnout of 35%.[5] On May 23, 2012, the amendment took effect.[6]

State law had already defined marriage as being between a man and a woman prior to its passage.[7] 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-Attorney General Roy Cooper declined to further defend it.

Full text

ARTICLE XIV, Section 6 of the Constitution of North Carolina, as amended, states:[8]

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

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.[9] Sponsored by Republican State Senator Peter Brunstetter, the bill was passed by the North Carolina General Assembly in September 2011.[10]

Final voting on SB 514 was as follows:

Ten House Democrats voted "aye": William Brisson, James W. Crawford, Jr., Elmer Floyd, Ken Goodman, 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),[11] Michael P. Walters and Stan White. All Senate Republicans voted "aye", except for one who did not vote, Fletcher Hartsell.[12]

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:[9]

  • 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 simple majority vote is required for approval.

  • Sections 4 and 5

Specify that the amendment will become effective when it is certified by the 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.[13] A white paper authored by Lynn Buzzard, William A. Woodruff, and Gregory Wallace of Campbell Law School disagreed with many of those claims.[14]

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.[15][16] 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.[17] 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.[18]

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.[15][16] 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.[19] 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.[19] The courts could have determined that validation of unmarried couples domestic legal union status would violate the amendment.[13] However, the counter argument was that North Carolina's domestic-violence statutes were better defined and included protections for unmarried couples.[20]

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

(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.[21]

Adoption and child-visitation protections were also in question. While North Carolina only allows adoption by one unmarried adult,[20] 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.[13] 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.[13] 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.[15][16] 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.[13] Issues in estate planning could have arisen through increased litigation contesting wills of unmarried individuals, particularly those in same-sex relationships.[13] 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.[13]

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.[22] Many Fortune 500 companies have implemented policies protecting employees against discrimination based on sexual orientation, which would not be affected by such legislation.[22]

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.[23]

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.[24][25] 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.[26]

Pre-decision opinion polls

Date of opinion poll Conducted by Sample size In favor Against Undecided Margin Margin of Error Source
May 5 – 6, 2012 Public Policy Polling 1,026 likely primary voters 55% 39% 6% 16% pro ±3.1% [27]
April 27 – 29, 2012 982 registered voters 55% 41% 4% 14% pro [28]
April 20 – 22, 2012 1,139 registered voters 54% 40% 6% ±2.9% [29]
March 26 – 29, 2012 Elon University Poll 534 adults 31.9% 61.2% 6.9% 29.3% con 4.24% [30]
March 23 – 25, 2012 Public Policy Polling 1,191 likely primary voters 58% 38% 8% 20% pro ±2.8% [31]
February 27 – 28, 2012 National Research, Inc. 600 registered voters 64% 30% 6% 34% pro ±4% [32]
February 26 – March 1, 2012 Elon University Poll 534 adults 37.8% 54.2% 7.9% 16.4% con 3.98% [33]
January 5 – 8, 2012 Public Policy Polling 780 registered voters 56% 34% 10% 22% pro ±3.5% [34]
December 1 – 4, 2011 865 registered voters 58% 32% 26% pro ±3.3% [35]
October 27 – 31, 2011 615 registered voters 59% 35% 6% 24% pro ±4% [36]
September 30 – October 3, 2011 671 likely primary voters 61% 34% 5% 27% pro ±4.26% [37]
September 1 – 4, 2011 520 voters 30% 55% 15% 15% con ±4.3% [38]
Same-sex marriage only constitutional ban polling
Date of opinion poll Conducted by Sample size In favor Against Undecided Margin Margin of Error Source
October 31 – November 2, 2011 Elon University Poll 529 adults 36.5% 57% 6.5% 20.5% con ±4.26% [39]
September 25 – 29, 2011 594 adults 39.1% 55.7% 5.1% 16.6% con ±4.02% [40]
August 15 – 16, 2011 National Research, Inc. 400 unaffiliated general election voters 49% 43% 7% 6% pro ±4.9% [41]
February 20 – 24, 2011 Elon University Poll 467 adults 37.9% 55.8% 5.9% 17.9% con ±4.6% [42]
August 16 – 18, 2010 National Research, Inc. 400 unaffiliated likely general election voters 50% 43% 7% 7% pro ±4.9% [43]
October 15 – 19, 2009 Elon University Poll 620 adults 43.3% 50.4% 6.2% 7% con ±7.1% [44]

Results

Amendment 1[45]
Choice Votes %
Referendum passed Yes 1,317,178 61.04
No 840,802 38.96
Total votes 2,157,980 100.00
Registered voters/turnout 6,296,759 34.66

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.[46][47]

Of the 100 counties of North Carolina, only Buncombe (home to Asheville), Orange (home to Chapel Hill), Durham (home to the city of Durham), Wake (home to Raleigh), Mecklenburg (home to Charlotte), Chatham, Watauga (home to Boone and Appalachian State University), and 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 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.[48]

Response by President Barack Obama

The day after Amendment 1 passed its public vote, US President Barack Obama expressed disappointment in the outcome[49] and announced his support for same-sex marriage.[50][51][52]

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.[53]

Shortly after 5 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".[54][55]

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."[56]

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

References

  1. ^ 05/08/2012 OFFICIAL PRIMARY ELECTION RESULTS - STATEWIDE
  2. ^ Voter Turnout
  3. ^ "Amendment One, North Carolina Public Employers, and Domestic Partner Benefits" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 5, 2012. Retrieved June 7, 2013.
  4. ^ The legal impact of Amendment One Archived 2014-05-06 at the Wayback Machine, ACLU of North Carolina
  5. ^ Weiner, Rachel (May 8, 2012). "North Carolina Passes Gay Marriage Ban Amendment One". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 25, 2019.
  6. ^ Constitutional amendment certified as election fraud questions winnowed
  7. ^ "NC General Statutes, Chapter 51". North Carolina General Assembly.
  8. ^ "Full text of the North Carolina State Constitution". ncga.state.nc.us. Retrieved February 24, 2021.
  9. ^ a b "Senate Bill 514" (PDF format).
  10. ^ "General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2011 SB514". North Carolina General Assembly. Retrieved September 14, 2011.
  11. ^ Pitts, Myron (September 15, 2011). "Pitts: Mansfield Defends Putting His Marriage First" Archived 2012-07-13 at archive.today. The Fayetteville Observer. Retrieved May 9, 2012.
  12. ^ "Senate Bill 514 / S.L. 2011-409". North Carolina General Assembly. Retrieved September 14, 2011.
  13. ^ April 2012. Campbell White Paper Archived 2012-05-19 at the Wayback Machine voteformarriagenc.com Retrieved May 10, 2012.
  14. ^ a b c "Marriage Amendment Would Affect Many People, Panel Says". Winston-Salem Journal. Archived from the original on April 20, 2012. Retrieved April 23, 2012.
  15. ^ "North Carolina Marriage Protection Amendment Fact Sheet" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF format) on October 15, 2014.
  16. ^ Geary, Mark (April 18, 2012). "Understanding North Carolina's Proposed Amendment One". Archived from the original on January 21, 2013.
  17. ^ a b Shapiro, Lila (April 9, 2012). "Same-Sex Marriage: North Carolina's Proposed Ban, Amendment One, Could Create 'Legal Chaos'". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on April 10, 2012.
  18. ^ a b Darst, Brittany (April 20, 2012). "Amendment One – Fact and Fiction". Archived from the original on February 2, 2016.
  19. ^ "Chapter 50B". Archived from the original on August 9, 2011.
  20. ^ a b "Biz Owners: Amendment One Could Harm Business Economic Development". Archived from the original on May 3, 2012.
  21. ^ "Amendment One still up 14 points in N.C." (PDF). May 1, 2012. Retrieved June 7, 2013.
  22. ^ Dalesio, Emery P. (May 7, 2012). "North Carolina Amendment One: Proposed Gay Marriage Ban Draws National Attention". Associated Press (via The Huffington Post). Retrieved May 9, 2012.
  23. ^ [dead link] Gordon, Michael (May 9, 2012). Amendment One: N.C. Voters Approve Measure To Block Same-Sex Marriage". The Charlotte Observer. Retrieved May 9, 2012.
  24. ^ Blumenthal, Paul (May 9, 2012). "Amendment One N.C.: Anti-Gay Marriage Donors". The Huffington Post. Retrieved May 9, 2012.
  25. ^ Dalton, McCrory, Amendment lead in North Carolina
  26. ^ Amendment One still up 14 points in N.C.
  27. ^ Momentum turning against NC marriage amendment
  28. ^ April 2, 2012: Support growing for same-sex marriage rights
  29. ^ N.C. marriage amendment up 20, close if voters informed
  30. ^ Civitas Poll: Majority of Voters Still Support Marriage Amendment
  31. ^ March 9, 2012: Economic mood brightens in North Carolina
  32. ^ N.C. GOP legislators’ popularity in the toilet
  33. ^ Perdue remains down to McCrory by 10, would romp Faison
  34. ^ Marriage amendment leading by 24, Perdue down 9
  35. ^ NC marriage amendment has plenty of support in primary test
  36. ^ NC against gay marriage but also marriage amendment
  37. ^ November 7, 2011: State residents divided on OWS movement
  38. ^ September 30, 2011: Majority of N.C. residents oppose constitutional ban on same-sex marriage
  39. ^ Civitas Poll: Unaffiliated Voters Still Support Marriage Amendment
  40. ^ Feb. 28, 2011: State residents divided on health care reform
  41. ^ August 2010 Poll Results
  42. ^ March 23, 2009: Half of North Carolinians oppose state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages
  43. ^ "North Carolina Board of Elections". results.enr.clarityelections.com. Retrieved February 24, 2021.
  44. ^ Gay Marriage Ban Passes In North Carolina
  45. ^ North Carolina Amendment 1
  46. ^ Saletan, William (October 10, 2014). "North Carolina Voters Have Already Abandoned Thom Tillis' Position on Gay Marriage". Slate.
  47. ^ "Obama announces he supports same-sex marriage - CNNPolitics". cnn.com. May 9, 2012. Retrieved February 24, 2021.
  48. ^ "President Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage". whitehouse.gov. May 10, 2012. Retrieved February 24, 2021 – via National Archives.
  49. ^ Calmes, Jackie; Baker, Peter (May 9, 2012). "Obama Says Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal". The New York Times. Retrieved February 24, 2021.
  50. ^ Lee, Carol E. (May 9, 2012). "Obama Says He Supports Gay Marriage". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 24, 2021.
  51. ^ "Marriage at the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals | Freedom to Marry". Archived from the original on November 5, 2014. Retrieved October 10, 2014.
  52. ^ "news/amendment-one-struck-down/article_40763ce2-5099-11e4-84c9-001a4bcf6878". news-record.com. October 10, 2014. Retrieved February 24, 2021.
  53. ^ Memorandum of Decision and Order from U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina[permanent dead link]
  54. ^ "www.newsobserver.com/2014/10/10/4222691_the-wait-for-gay-marriage-in-north.html?sp=/99/100/&rh=1". newsobserver.com. Archived from the original on December 19, 2014. Retrieved February 24, 2021.

External links

Read more information:

Thomas HollandLambang Thomas Holland, Earl Pertama KentAyahRobert HollandIbuMaud la ZouchePasanganJoan dari KentAnakThomas Holland IIJohn HollandJaned HollandMaud, Comtesse Ligny Thomas Holland, Earl Pertama Kent, Baron Kedua Holland, KG (tahun 1314 – 26 Desember 1360) merupakan seorang bangsawan Inggris dan komandan militer selama Perang Seratus Tahun. Ia berasal dari golongan keluarga ningrat di Holland, Lancashire. Ia adalah putra Robert Holland dan Maud la Zouche. Pada awal karier militern…

Thomas Dale. Thomas Dale adalah seorang laksamana Inggris dan wakil gubernur Koloni Virginia (1611–1616) dan anggota Dewan Negara (1612–1616), dan terkenal karena mengeluarkan peraturan militer dan sipil yang ketat yang dirancang untuk menertibkan dan disiplin di pemukiman Jamestown.[1] Diawal abad ke-17. Dia bersekutu dengan Pangeran Wijayakrama untuk mengusir VOC dari Jayakarta pada Desember 1618. Pada 1618 - Des Banten mengambil keputusan untuk menghadapi Jayakarta dan VOC dengan …

1971 film by Don Siegel The BeguiledFilm poster by Bob PeakDirected byDon SiegelScreenplay by Albert Maltz (as John B. Sherry) Irene Kamp (as Grimes Grice) Based onThe Beguiledby Thomas P. CullinanProduced byDon SiegelStarring Clint Eastwood Geraldine Page Elizabeth Hartman Jo Ann Harris Darleen Carr Mae Mercer Pamelyn Ferdin Melody Thomas Peggy Drier Pattye Mattick CinematographyBruce SurteesEdited byCarl PingitoreMusic byLalo SchifrinProductioncompanyThe Malpaso CompanyDistributed byUniversal …

Superstition in American baseball The Chicago Cubs' logo. The Ex-Cubs Factor (or Ex-Cub Factor) is a seemingly spurious correlation that was seen as essentially a corollary to the Curse of the Billy Goat. Widely published in the 1990s, the hypothesis asserted that since the appearance by the Chicago Cubs in the 1945 World Series, any baseball team headed into the World Series with three or more former Cubs on its roster has a critical mass of Cubness and a strong likelihood of failure.[1]…

Erbium(III) klorida Nama Nama IUPAC Erbium(III) klorida Nama lain Erbium triklorida Penanda Nomor CAS 10138-41-7 (anhidrat) N Model 3D (JSmol) Gambar interaktif 3DMet {{{3DMet}}} ChemSpider 59656 Y Nomor EC PubChem CID 66277 Nomor RTECS {{{value}}} UNII 867J5QOF46 N CompTox Dashboard (EPA) DTXSID5064966 InChI InChI=1S/3ClH.Er/h3*1H;/q;;;+3/p-3 YKey: HDGGAKOVUDZYES-UHFFFAOYSA-K YInChI=1/3ClH.Er/h3*1H;/q;;;+3/p-3Key: HDGGAKOVUDZYES-DFZHHIFOAE SMILES Cl[Er](C…

French journalist and television host Erika MouletErika Moulet in October 2012Born (1982-01-23) 23 January 1982 (age 42)Verdun, FranceNationalityFrenchEducationISCPA - Institut des Médias, Institut International de Communication de Paris (IICP Paris X)Occupation(s)Journalist, television hostNotable credit(s)Top Story, on TV Breizh, Le Jour qui a changé ma vie on TF1, L’after news on LCISpouseBachar KhaliféChildren3 Erika Moulet (born 23 January 1982) is a French journalist and televisi…

Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted Header etelase SteamBerdasarkanFive Nights at Freddy's (en) PublikasiPlayStation 4, Windows28 Mei 2019Switch21 Mei 2020Oculus QuestJuly 16, 2020Android26 Oktober 2020iOS27 Oktober 2020Xbox One30 Oktober 2020GenreVirtual reality, horor kesintasanKarakterVanessa A. (en) Latar tempatFive Nights at Freddy's universe (en) Bahasa Daftar Inggris 60 Karakteristik teknisSistem operasiAndroid dan iOS PlatformPlayStation 4, Windows, Nintendo Switch, Android dan iOS Mesi…

Nama ini menggunakan cara penamaan Portugis. Nama keluarga pertama atau maternalnya adalah Agualusa dan nama keluarga kedua atau paternalnya adalah Alves da Cunha. José Eduardo AgualusaPicture of AgualusaLahirDecember 13, 1960Nova Lisboa, Overseas Province of AngolaBahasaPortugueseKebangsaanAngolanGenreAngolan HistoryKarya terkenalA General Theory of OblivionPenghargaan2007 Independent Foreign Fiction Prize2017 International Dublin Literary Award José Eduardo Agualusa Alves da Cunha (…

One of the 12 Tribes of Israel Not to be confused with Kingdom of Judah. This article is about the Hebrew tribe. For the musical band, see Tribe of Judah (band). This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (October 2021) Tribe of JudahMap of the twelve tribes of Israel, before the move of Dan to the North. (The text is partially in German.)Geograp…

Minhang 闵行区DistrikQibao Old TownMotto: The Charming Green CommunityLokasi di ShanghaiKoordinat: 31°06′46″N 121°22′54″E / 31.11278°N 121.38167°E / 31.11278; 121.38167Koordinat: 31°06′46″N 121°22′54″E / 31.11278°N 121.38167°E / 31.11278; 121.38167NegaraRepublik Rakyat TiongkokMunisipalitasShanghaiLuas • Total371,7 km2 (143,5 sq mi)Populasi (2010) • Total2.429.000 •&…

Acalolepta fraudatrix Klasifikasi ilmiah Kerajaan: Animalia Filum: Arthropoda Kelas: Insecta Ordo: Coleoptera Famili: Cerambycidae Subfamili: Lamiinae Tribus: Lamiini Genus: Acalolepta Spesies: Acalolepta fraudatrix Acalolepta fraudatrix adalah spesies kumbang tanduk panjang yang berasal dari famili Cerambycidae. Spesies ini juga merupakan bagian dari genus Acalolepta, ordo Coleoptera, kelas Insecta, filum Arthropoda, dan kingdom Animalia. Larva kumbang ini biasanya mengebor ke dalam kayu dan da…

Cyclosa conica Klasifikasi ilmiah Kerajaan: Animalia Filum: Arthropoda Kelas: Arachnida Ordo: Araneae Famili: Araneidae Spesies: Cyclosa conica Nama binomial Cyclosa conicaPallas, 1772 Cyclosa conica adalah spesies laba-laba yang tergolong famili Araneidae. Spesies ini juga merupakan bagian dari ordo Araneae. Nama ilmiah dari spesies ini pertama kali diterbitkan pada tahun 1772 oleh Pallas. Laba-laba ini biasanya banyak ditemui di Holarktik. Referensi Platnick, Norman I. (2010): The world spider…

Artikel ini sebagian besar atau seluruhnya berasal dari satu sumber. Tolong bantu untuk memperbaiki artikel ini dengan menambahkan rujukan ke sumber lain yang tepercaya.Artikel biografi ini ditulis menyerupai resume atau daftar riwayat hidup (Curriculum Vitae). Tolong bantu perbaiki agar netral dan ensiklopedis.Lasmi IndaryaniS.E. Anggota Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik IndonesiaPetahanaMulai menjabat 1 Oktober 2019PresidenJoko WidodoDaerah pemilihanJawa Tengah VII Informasi pribadiLahir23 …

Irawati HermawanLahir(1969-04-22)22 April 1969KebangsaanIndonesiaPendidikan Universitas Padjajaran (Sarjana Hukum, 1992) Universitas Padjajaran (Kandidat Notaris, 1999) Universitas Indonesia (Magister Hukum, 2007) Universitas Padjajaran (Kandidat Doktoral, sedang berjalan) PekerjaanLawyer InfrastrukturSuami/istriBagus KaryanegaraAnakAdellina Syariffa Karyanegara M Akmal Yusuf Karyanegara Muhammad Elang Adhyaksa Mikaila Jessy Azzhara Salma Aurelia Irawati Hermawan adalah seorang pengacara Indones…

Biro Investigasi Pusatकेंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरोKendriya Anveshan BureauLambang Biro Investigasi PusatNamaBiro Investigasi PusatSingkatanCBIMottoIndustri, Impartialitas, IntegritasIkhtisarDibentuk1941PendahuluPendirian Polisi Istimewa (SPE) (1941)PersonelSanctioned: 6590Actual: 5666Lowong: 924 (14%)as on 31 December 2011[1]Anggaran₹303,79 crore (US$43 juta) (2011-2012)[1]Struktur yurisdiksiLembaga federal(Yurisdiksi operasi)IndiaWilay…

Apriona cylindrica Klasifikasi ilmiah Kerajaan: Animalia Filum: Arthropoda Kelas: Insecta Ordo: Coleoptera Famili: Cerambycidae Genus: Apriona Spesies: Apriona cylindrica Apriona cylindrica adalah spesies kumbang tanduk panjang yang tergolong famili Cerambycidae. Spesies ini juga merupakan bagian dari genus Apriona, ordo Coleoptera, kelas Insecta, filum Arthropoda, dan kingdom Animalia. Larva kumbang ini biasanya mengebor ke dalam kayu dan dapat menyebabkan kerusakan pada batang kayu hidup atau …

Fracturing bedrock by pressurized liquid FrackingFracking the Bakken Formation in North DakotaProcess typeMechanicalIndustrial sector(s)MiningMain technologies or sub-processesFluid pressureProduct(s)Natural gas, petroleumInventorFloyd Farris, Joseph B. Clark (Stanolind Oil and Gas Corporation)Year of invention1947 FrackingShale gas drilling rig near Alvarado, TexasShale gas drilling rig near Alvarado, Texas By country Canada New Zealand South Africa Ukraine United Kingdom United States Environm…

يفتقر محتوى هذه المقالة إلى الاستشهاد بمصادر. فضلاً، ساهم في تطوير هذه المقالة من خلال إضافة مصادر موثوق بها. أي معلومات غير موثقة يمكن التشكيك بها وإزالتها. (نوفمبر 2019) كأس الكؤوس الإفريقية 1976 تفاصيل الموسم كأس الكؤوس الإفريقية  النسخة 2  المنظم الاتحاد الإفريقي لكرة ال…

American politician This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (March 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Rolla McMillen1948 photo by Harris & Ewing (Washington, DC)Member of the United States House of RepresentativesIn officeJanuary 3, 1949 – January 3, 1951Preceded byMelvin PriceSucceeded b…

Mark HughesOBE Hughes melatih Stoke City pada 2015Informasi pribadiNama lengkap Leslie Mark Hughes[1]Tanggal lahir 1 November 1963 (umur 60)Tempat lahir Ruabon, Wrexham, WalesTinggi 1,78 m (5 ft 10 in) [2]Posisi bermain PenyerangKarier junior1978–1980 Manchester UnitedKarier senior*Tahun Tim Tampil (Gol)1980–1986 Manchester United 89 (37)1986–1988 Barcelona 28 (4)1987–1988 → Bayern München (pinjaman) 18 (6)1988–1995 Manchester United 256 (82)1995…

Kembali kehalaman sebelumnya