Although the ban hasn’t been in effect for nearly a decade, backers of the amendment said it was time to get the language off the books.

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.

  • plz1@lemmy.worldEnglish
    27·
    17 days ago

    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.

    • macniel@feddit.org
      5·
      17 days ago

      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?

    • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nzEnglish
      3·
      17 days ago

      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.

      • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
        3·
        17 days ago

        Lawyers hate this one weird trick! That wouldn’t work because you’re not actually being more “strict”, you’re still in opposition to the federal law. Being more “strict” means you’re still in compliance with federal law, you just do extra stuff on top. Semantics can’t change that.

        • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nzEnglish
          3·
          17 days ago

          Oh no, we definitely follow federal law. Marijuana possession is 100% illegal here and anyone who smokes pot should know they are very naughty! We just don’t allow cops to do anything about it.