Let’s talk about Amendment J. This one’s asking voters whether we should remove language from Colorado’s constitution, which defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman. Even though this provision hasn’t had any legal standing since 2015 (due to a U.S. Supreme Court decision), some Coloradans believe it’s important to clean up the books—or at least, that’s what they say. Here’s what’s going on.
What Is Amendment J?
Amendment J proposes to strike the definition of marriage as being only between one man and one woman from the state constitution. This language was put in place back in 2006 when voters approved Amendment 43 by a 56% majority. Fast forward nearly two decades, and while same-sex marriage is federally protected, this amendment aims to remove the constitutional restriction at the state level (Colorado Sun) (Colorado General Assembly).
For those who want to see the exact amendment text, you can find it here.
What’s the Amendment Trying to Accomplish?
Even though same-sex marriage is currently legal nationwide, supporters of Amendment J argue that the amendment is necessary to protect marriage rights within Colorado if the U.S. Supreme Court ever decides to reverse its 2015 ruling (Obergefell v. Hodges). With some justices signaling interest in revisiting past decisions, proponents see this as an insurance policy to ensure Colorado’s constitution aligns with state laws and existing protections (Colorado Sun) (BallotReady).
The Pros
- Prevents Future Legal Battles: Advocates believe that repealing this language now will prevent legal confusion or challenges if federal protections are ever rolled back. It’s about keeping state laws aligned with what’s already been accepted federally (Colorado Sun).
- Majority Support: Recent polls indicate that a significant majority of Coloradans support same-sex marriage. Supporters argue that updating the constitution reflects the majority’s view and removes outdated and divisive language (Colorado Sun).
- Bipartisan Legislative Support: The amendment has found backing from both sides of the aisle, showing that even those who may not personally support same-sex marriage recognize the importance of ensuring consistent legal protections in Colorado (KRDO).
The Cons
- Moral and Religious Objections: Conservative groups, such as the Colorado Catholic Conference, oppose the amendment. They argue that marriage should remain defined as a union between one man and one woman and that this definition reflects timeless values that should not be compromised (KRDO).
- Unnecessary Legislation: Some critics believe this amendment is simply unnecessary since federal and state laws already protect same-sex marriage. They view it as a political move rather than a practical necessity (Colorado Sun) (BallotReady).
- Threat to Religious Freedom: Opponents warn that, by removing this definition, the state could open the door to conflicts with religious organizations and individuals who hold traditional beliefs about marriage. They worry that this could lead to lawsuits or attempts to compel people of faith to act against their conscience (KRDO).
What the Colorado Blue Book Says
A “YES” vote on Amendment J repeals language in the Colorado Constitution that defines a valid marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
A “NO” vote on Amendment J maintains the current language in the Colorado Constitution that defines a valid marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
The Bottom Line
Amendment J is essentially a debate over whether Colorado’s constitution should reflect federal law or maintain traditional language. If you believe it’s important to secure state-level protections for same-sex marriage—just in case—this amendment is for you. If you think the current federal protections are sufficient and that traditional marriage should be recognized in the state constitution, then a “no” vote makes perfect sense.
For more information and perspectives, check out The Colorado Sun, BallotReady, and KRDO.
Enough objectivity, here’s how we’re voting
We’re voting yes. That’s not a conclusion at which we easily arise. Make no mistake – we believe what the Bible says, and the Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. Nothing unclear about that. Our nasty libertarian streak wonders why government has to be involved in marriage at all. What gets us to a very reluctant yes is is the fact that our constitution is out of line with Supreme Court rulings.
