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.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    15 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      15 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.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      15 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.