For a few hours this week, the Colorado Republican Party supported gay rights, or at least gay marriage.

As of today, however, the party is apparently neutral. The party announced its ballot initiative guide via email Thursday afternoon at 2:00 PM. The guide as published included a position in favor of Amendment J, which would repeal the “one man and one woman” marriage definition in Colorado’s constitution. By 10:00 AM Friday morning, however, the Amendment J endorsement had been removed from the guide entirely, apparently leaving the party with no position.

Amendment J is on the ballot via the state legislature. As one of their first acts this year, legislators passed the Protecting the Freedom to Marry resolution in order to remove the unenforceable but still-present exclusionary definition added to the state constitution eighteen years ago via the passage of Amendment 43. The vote was overwhelmingly in favor: 46-14 with 5 excused in the House, and 29-5 with one excused in the Senate. Among the representatives who missed the vote were House Minority Leader Rose Pugliese (R-Colorado Springs) and Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Fort Lupton), who is currently running for Congress.

The Obergefell decision rendered Amendment 43 toothless a decade ago, but ever since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Justice Thomas indicated his desire to “reconsider” gay marriage, pro-LGBT states have been taking measures to protect the institution.

Even the brief appearance of a pro-Obergefell position from the Colorado GOP is surprising given the fact that its current, albeit disputed, chair, Dave Williams is unapologetically opposed to LGBT rights. He faced backlash from his own party earlier this year for sending an official email stating that “God Hates Pride” and “God hates flags,” invoking the virulent hatred of the Westboro Baptist hate group. 

Here is the text of the position prior to its deletion:

Amendment J: Repealing the Definition of Marriage in the Constitution

VOTE YES

In 2006, Colorado voters approved an amendment to Colorado’s constitution stating that only the union of one man or one woman is a valid or recognized marriage in Colorado. Amendment J repeals this language, which has been declared unconstitutional by state and federal courts. While the traditional definition of marriage is still relevant in Christianity, and all Christians should vote accordingly, the RNC has not taken a stance on marriage in 2024. The state of Colorado’s concern with this matter is moot, as it has been adjudicated via SCOTUS. A limited government stance-what two consenting adults do with their lives is not subject matter for voters or the legislature; liberty is afforded here. Importantly, the focus of any LGBTQ-related efforts should be on the trans agenda and children harmed within this state. Focus in LGBTQ issues by the GOP must turn to children and education.

While it is technically true that “the RNC has not taken a stance on marriage in 2024,” it is also true that the RNC nevertheless still has a position on marriage. Its 2016 platform, which can be found on the Colorado GOP website, emphatically supports the “one man and one woman” definition and attacks the Obergefell decision which overturned that section of Colorado’s constitution moot. From that document: 

Defending Marriage Against an Activist Judiciary

Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.” In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent. We, therefore, support the appointment of justices and judges who respect the constitutional limits on their power and respect the authority of the states to decide such fundamental social questions.

Reached via email, state Rep. Scott Bottoms, one of the most vocal opponents of LGBTQ rights among the 19 House Republicans, said he had “no idea” about the brief support for Amendment J and reaffirmed his own position.

“I do take a stand regardless who takes a stand or does not,” said Bottoms. “God created marriage and defined it as between a biological man and women and that cannot be spiritually changed even if a group of people vote their own definition in.” 

Chairman Williams did not respond to an email request for comment. This article will be updated with any response received.