Amendment J would repeal Colorado's defunct ban on same-sex marriage from constitution

DENVER — Amendment J would protect same-sex marriages in Colorado by repealing the state constitution’s now-defunct definition — which recognizes only unions between a man and a woman.

Same-sex marriages were legalized nationwide in 2015 by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Obergefell v. Hodges case. Colorado was already issuing gay marriage licenses the prior year, after its ban was deemed unconstitutional by a lower court.

However, the state’s constitution still retains a 2006 voter-approved amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The measure, which was referred to the ballot by the state legislature, would align Colorado’s constitution with decisions made by both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Colorado Supreme Court. Unlike amendments that would add to the state constitution and need a higher threshold of support, a repeal measure like Amendment J needs only a simple majority to pass.

What would Amendment J do if passed?

The amendment would repeal the language in the state’s constitution that limits valid marriages to those between a man and a woman.

What would it cost?

According to the state’s Blue Book voter guide, the amendment wouldn’t place any financial burden on local governments since it would simply remove a now-overruled definition from the constitution.

What do supporters say?

While same-sex marriages are currently permitted throughout the U.S., supporters argue that those unions could be at risk if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn past rulings.

Those in favor of the ballot measure, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and Democratic U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, contend that the amendment would protect personal freedoms.

What do opponents say?

Opponents of the repeal, like the Colorado Catholic Conference, counter that marriage should be based on biological reproduction between a man and a woman, and the constitution’s current definition should be retained in case the courts adopt a different stance on same-sex marriage in the future.

______