Freedom to Marry: Colorado’s Fight for Marriage Equality

In 2006, Colorado voters ratified Amendment 43, defining marriage as between a man and a woman within the Colorado constitution. Now, nearly two decades later, Coloradans can rectify this mistake. Amendment J will effectively strip the language put in place by Amendment 43. This will protect queer Coloradan couples, no matter what our legal landscape may look like in the future. To speak on the importance of Amendment J, OFM sat down with Susy Bates (she/her), the campaign director for Freedom to Marry Colorado.

What is Amendment J?

J is the amendment that we have on the ballot this year. It seeks to remove the ban on same-sex marriage that we have in the Colorado Constitution. Back in 2006, voters passed Amendment 43. It defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. As we know in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled on Obergefell making marriage equality the law of the land. Now, that language with Amendment 43 is not enforceable. But we have seen with the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v, Wade and as a couple of the Supreme Court justices have said, there’s precedent to overturn Obergefell as well.

In Colorado, we have come so far from 2006, and we have become one of the beacons of hope for the LGBTQ community. (Freedom to Marry Colorado) is taking proactive measures this year to remove that language so that no matter what happens at the national level, we can protect marriage for same-sex couples here in the state.

Why do we need Amendment J now?

We have seen precedent setting  over the course of the last 10 years in our politics at the national level. While I think folks probably felt more comfortable that Obergefell was untouchable, the reality is that our Supreme Court has become more conservative. So issues that we felt were settled law in the last eight to 10 years really aren’t settled. What we’re doing is taking action to make sure that we do everything we can in Colorado to protect LGBTQ folks.

This year, we worked with our legislative leaders to refer a measure to the ballot. We needed two thirds in the Senate, which in actuality meant we needed one Republican to join Democratic majorities in the Colorado House and Senate to refer this to the ballot. I’m so thrilled to say that, not only did we get one, but we got six in the Senate, In the House, we got two Republicans to vote with us. It just shows that especially as it relates to marriage equality, there is widespread bipartisan support.

It is important for us to take these steps now because as I mentioned, if (Obergefell) is overturned, we really don’t know what would happen for folks who are already married and we know it would have an impact on folks who wanted to get married in the future.

Why not sponsor a bill in the Colorado Congress?

That’s a great question. There are two ways you can run ballot initiatives: either as a statutory measure or as a constitutional amendment. Amendments cannot be. adjusted or impacted by legislation. If you do a statutory measure, it can be adjusted by the legislative process.

Once an amendment is added to our constitution through the ballot initiative process, you have to take it back to the voters in order to change anything. So we wouldn’t have the option to go through the legislature because the ban on same-sex marriage is now part of the language. Since we are adjusting the language, we have to hit that 50% plus one mark. We have to take it to the voters. There’s no other option.

What do you have to say to people who say “Gay marriage is legal. There’s no point for this amendment”?

It is legal now but if we’re successful, same-sex couples will not change, and that’s our goal.

We are unwilling to be in a position where we’re on our heels if Obergefell is overturned. We don’t want to send folks into limbo of not knowing what’s going to happen to their marriage or engagements. There are real consequences for removing legal protections of marriage, whether it’s being able to visit your partner in the hospital or adoption. Folks don’t really think about these things until those rights are at risk. For us, it is not as much a matter of why now versus another year. It’s a, “We’re not willing to take the risk to be in a position where we might lose those rights, so let’s do it now.”

Is there anything else you would like to add?

While we were referring this measure, we also combated 30 anti-trans initiatives conservative activists put forward through the title board process. Twenty-seven of those initiatives did not meet the threshold for single subject requirement which is what the title board asks for. But three were greenlit to be moved forward to collect signatures in the summer. Of those three, only two were circulated because one was fairly similar. They were not successful in collecting the signatures they needed in order to get them on the ballot. But they’ve already said they’re going to come back. So 2025, 2026 and into the future, these folks are taking action to chip away at individual rights through the ballot initiative process. It’s something that we all need to be cognizant of and monitor as we shift into future election cycles.

Photos courtesy of Maria Ignacia Miranda Santis of MIMS Photo and Arts LLC