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.
Well, give it a few months, trump will remove it all.
Will be overruled by national ban next year.
But states rights!!! /s
just like that? the governors don’t have a say in that?
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.
Sort of, yes. Your example, as passed as a state law, would bind state officers, but not federal officers.
And in fact, New Hampshire passed a law barring state officers from enforcing federal firearms law. If the feds want to be more restrictive than the state, they’ll have to do that work themselves. https://newhampshirebulletin.com/briefs/sununu-signs-bill-barring-state-enforcement-of-federal-firearms-laws/
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.
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.
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?
This was a massive debate for the first decades of the country.
That’s how it was designed. The federal government was supposed to be a weak organization only to organize between states and other countries. In practice, the federal government gradually increased its own power, culminating in the Supreme Court affirming it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Damn but thanks again :)
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
Uncomfortable? People are going to die macniel.
Yes, very uncomfortable.
Edgy. It must feel satisfying. Been a pleasure chatting but I have work to do. Tata.
No, on the contrary. It is absolutely not satisfying, its absolutely terrifying. Have a good day.
Already have been. It’ll just get worse now.
Tell that to the states that have legalized recreational marijuana, while marijuana is still a federally Class 1 controlled substance
Selective enforcement is not something we should aim for.
Why not, in this reality we live in? Not in the ideal make-believe reality, in the current reality. Why shouldn’t we aim for it, especially when it comes to this, knowing that all three branches of the federal government are going to go a particular way? Even if it sets a bad precedence, screw it. Save lives now, rather than chase an ideal.
Because it’s already being used to oppress minorities.
Well that’s nice.
Until a federal ban.
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.
Americans are morons. That’s it.
Apparently Trump’s numbers are same compared to 2020 but something like 14 million Biden voters chose to stay home than vote for Harris.
Absolute fuckwits.
Edit: Trump lost 3 million voters compared to 2020.
democrats were warned during biden’s campaign in 2020 they (the left) wouldn’t do it again for them. and you’re surprised that they followed through when presented with a genocidal candidate? :shocked pikachu:
Since when is Trump DNC candidate?
maybe if the dems would stop fielding such uninspuring candidates whos main argument seems to be “i’m not that guy” they might get somewhere
Becoming a fascist dictatorship to own the neoliberals
Sure buddy. It’s all someone else’s fault that you didn’t get the perfect candidate that you wanted.
So you stayed home and look who you got as a president.
Good job protesting against DNC. 👍
I’m from the UK so i don’t have the option to vote in the US election, if i were a US citizen i would have voted for Harris. Take it as an outside perspective. Improve or fuck off. Trump got less votes than he did last time and won both the popular vote and the electoral college.
The numbers don’t lie, a politician that doesn’t get people to vote for them is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
do better.
I’m thinking that won’t happen until around March, if not by then definitely in May.
Article didn’t say - how much did it pass by?
Looked it up myself - they’re still counting votes but as of now 63.8% of voters supported it.
fuck, dude
