this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
706 points (98.4% liked)

News

23293 readers
6266 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PortoPeople@lemm.ee 110 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Will be overruled by national ban next year.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)

just like that? the governors don't have a say in that?

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 40 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

whelp and Congress, President and SCOTUS being in the hands of Republicans... this gonna get very uncomfortable

[–] pinkystew@reddthat.com 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Uncomfortable? People are going to die macniel.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Gerudo@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Already have been. It'll just get worse now.

[–] wanderingmagus@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Tell that to the states that have legalized recreational marijuana, while marijuana is still a federally Class 1 controlled substance

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Selective enforcement is not something we should aim for.

[–] wanderingmagus@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Because it's already being used to oppress minorities.

[–] wanderingmagus@lemm.ee 0 points 1 week ago

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?

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 32 points 1 week ago (1 children)

States' rights are only valid as long as they support the Republican agenda...

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[–] plz1@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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?

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago

Damn but thanks again :)

[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago

This was a massive debate for the first decades of the country.

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[–] Pacmanlives@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

But states rights!!!!!!!!! /s