Summary
Colorado voters passed Amendment J, removing language from the state constitution that defined marriage exclusively as a union between one man and one woman.
This 2006 provision, previously enshrined by Amendment 43, conflicted with the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
Supporters, including LGBTQ+ advocacy group One Colorado, argue that Amendment J safeguards same-sex marriage in the state if federal protections are ever overturned.
Opponents, like Focus on the Family and the Colorado Catholic Conference, uphold traditional marriage definitions, asserting that marriage should reflect biological complementarity and support children’s well-being through both maternal and paternal roles.
While voting for this, I was shocked that the ban on gay marriage passed on 2006. Reminded me that even though we’ve had some shithead leaders over the years, at least we’re making some progress.
California passed Proposition 8 (one man one woman)in 2008! Thankfully we saw sense, and this time we passed Prop 3 (the right to marry is a fundamental right/ equal protection).
We may be a little screwy about the number line, but hopefully we’re still a bastion of humanity.
Will be overruled by national ban next year.
States’ rights are only valid as long as they support the Republican agenda…
The civil war was about states’ rights
States’ rights to force other states to return escaped slaves. Slaves were taking the underground railroad to the north where slavery wasn’t enforced. The South responded by demanding the North return the escaped slaves.
The civil war was about bullying left wing states into violating their own laws to conform to what conservative states demanded of them.
Others have answered, but the reason why “states’ rights” don’t matter at the Federal level is the Supremacy Clause. States can be more restrictive than the Federal government, but cannot be more lax/loose. An interesting aside is the states that have legalized marijuana usage, where the Federal government has (as of yet) not cracked down on that. It is within constitutional power to do so, but just hasn’t.
Can’t you game that law by just phrasing permissive laws as strict?
“It is illegal for any officer of the law to make arrest or conviction based on marijuana consumption or possession”.
Boom. You’re being more restrictive, not being more loose.
woah, thanks for the lesson.
Perhaps a federation would be more suited for America instead of one government that decides for all even though every state has its own set of problems?
Nope. Federal law is solely up to Congress to make it and the President to sign it (and the Supreme Court to review if someone sues). Governors only affect state law, and federal law supercedes state law.
whelp and Congress, President and SCOTUS being in the hands of Republicans… this gonna get very uncomfortable
Tell that to the states that have legalized recreational marijuana, while marijuana is still a federally Class 1 controlled substance
Well that’s nice.
Same thought when I read about Missouri voting for access to abortion, and for Republicans.
I’m just so dumbfounded by how many progressive constitutional amendments got passed but voted Republican.
I just can’t comprehend someone saying, “You know, this asshole took away my abortion rights but since I’m voting to restore them, I guess he should get another shot.”
These people think that abortion amendments are going to hold when their dear leader is in the White House.
That’s why we’re out of here ASAP.
Edit: Are queerphobes downvoting me or something? Sorry, I’m not going to stick around and watch my daughter get marched into a conversion therapy camp.
Article didn’t say - how much did it pass by?
fuck, dude
