Voters agree to remove same sex marriage ban from Colorado's constitution
Voters agree to remove same sex marriage ban from Colorado's constitution
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
Will be overruled by national ban next year.
just like that? the governors don't have a say in that?
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.
So what you're saying is, if there new federal government says to round up the Hispanics, Muslims, gays and trans people and put them in camps, States should comply, because there shouldn't be exceptions?
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.
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?
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 :)
This was a massive debate for the first decades of the country.
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.
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.
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/
As long as the Supreme Court agrees that that is restrictive, sure.
But states rights!!!!!!!!! /s