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.

  • Dragon "Rider"(drag)@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 hours 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours 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.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours 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.