Idaho gay marriage bill
Home / identity relationships / Idaho gay marriage bill
“We have fought very hard for these rights, and these rights extend beyond the state. During the Jim Crow era, segregation was justified based on states’ rights. The majority of in-person testifiers spoke against the resolution, detailing experiences with friends and family, personal struggles with their own identities and state and religious separation.
Rep.
“The Confederate states made similar claims to perpetuate slavery. Jackson Women's Health Organization that overturned the federal right to abortion.
Thomas, who issued a dissenting opinion in 2015 against same-sex marriage, wrote in 2022, "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.
After emotional hearing, Idaho committee advances resolution to overturn gay marriage
BOISE — Idaho lawmakers have advanced a resolution rejecting the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling to nationally legalize same-sex marriage.
In a 13-2 vote Wednesday, the House State Affairs Committee voted in favor of House Joint Memorial 1, which calls upon the U.S.
Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell v. Otter.
Marriage laws in the United States have seen many changes, including adjustments allowing married couples to use contraceptives, Griswold v. "A majority of Americans of all political affiliations support marriage equality. A Pew Research religious landscape study found that there was a nearly even divide between Christians in favor of and against same-sex marriage, with younger generations being more likely to accept gay marriage.
Advocates for the resolution argued that Idaho is obligated to challenge the Supreme Court’s decision on the premise of federal overreach and religious observance.
Julianne Young, former state representative from Blackfoot, said she supported the resolution because of her beliefs on marriage and family.
“This act of sheer judicial hubris has effectively undefined marriage,” Young said.
Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,' we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."
Lawrence v. “Traditionally, that’s a state’s decision.”
The resolution, which doesn’t hold the weight of law, states the court decision “undermines” the vision of the framers of the U.S.
Constitution “by declaring that citizens must seek dignity from the state” instead of holding inherent worth after “being created in the image of God.”
Voters here overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment nearly a decade earlier limiting marriage to between men and women.
Obergefell, according to the resolution, recognizes same-sex marriage, “thus undermining the civil liberties of those states’ residents and voters.”
“Since court rulings are not laws and only legislatures elected by the people may pass laws, Obergefell is an illegitimate overreach,” the resolution states.
Rep.
"We understand that queer and trans people have been here and have existed in times when oppression has been great and where we have had to hide, but we have never ceased to exist ... “I believe that the state of Idaho should have the opportunity to choose to align their policy with these timeless truths.”
Edward Clark from the Idaho Family Policy Center, a conservative Christian lobbying group, also supported the bill.
“The Supreme Court violated the Constitution,” said Clark.
Todd Achilles (D-Boise) and Brooke Green (D-Boise) said they supported the resolution's introduction in the hopes that Republicans would support introducing their legislation in the future — a strategy that's had mixed results over the past several years.
"Voting to print the bill means we have the chance to debate it, challenge it, and vote against it on the record with our colleagues," Achilles and Green said in a joint statement, though the proposal would have been defeated had enough legislators voted against it.
Their choice to support the resolution's introduction came just moments after House State Affairs Chair, Rep.
Brent Crane (R-Nampa), told the committee they should vote against introducing legislation they don't like without fear of retaliation by him.
If approved by both chambers, a copy of the resolution will be sent to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The committee must give it a full hearing before it can reach the House floor.
Copyright 2025 Boise State Public Radio
Idaho Republican legislators call on SCOTUS to reverse same-sex marriage ruling
The Idaho House passed a resolution Monday calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its 2015 decision on same-sex marriage equality.
The court’s Obergefell v.
This bill not only harms same-sex couples, it sets a dangerous precedent of using government authority to impose one narrow religious interpretation of marriage on all people.”
Views on same-sex marriage remain divided among religious practitioners. Rev. Sara LaWall, a minister of the Boise Universal Unitarian Fellowship, spoke to the emotional and spiritual significance of marriage recognition.
“Marriage holds a profound spiritual, emotional and societal significance,” LaWall said.
Connecticut overturned state restrictions on the use of contraceptives.
The 14th Amendment states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Respect for Marriage Law signed by former President Joe Biden in 2022 guarantees the federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages and acts as a limited remedy if the Supreme Court were to overrule the Obergefell precedent.
There are federal implications to our ability to be married.”
Debates on religion, scripture interpretation and morality dominated the hearing, with representatives from different religious organizations also testifying in opposition to the resolution. Resolutions are not laws, and state legislatures lack the power to dismantle marriage equality.
So, they organized a "Big Gay Wedding" to officiate the marriage ceremonies of queer couples en masse with the support of volunteer photographers, florists and others from the community.
"We wanted to be able to provide the service for our community, to be able to celebrate queer love and celebrate queer joy, to have some time for folks to get married who might not be able to otherwise afford a marriage in a congregation, and we want it to be like this big and joyous and beautiful celebration that really brings our community together," the church's Reverend Lane-Mairead Campbell previously told ABC News.
Events like Campbell's "Big Gay Wedding" have begun to pop up around the country, helping residents to make precautionary changes.
"We still have the ability to do this regardless of what happens legally in the months and years ahead," said Campbell.
They cannot touch the guaranteed federal protections for same-sex couples under the Respect for Marriage Act."
Sponsored Content by Taboola
.
What if the federal government defined property rights or nationalized water rights? Connecticut, and interracial couples to marry, Loving v.Dozens were heard, with an estimated 225 total people signing up to testify on both sides of the matter. In my denomination, we've been doing queer weddings since well before it was legal, and we will continue to do them well after."
The Idaho House argues that "marriage as an institution has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman for more than two thousand years, and within common law, the basis of the United States' Anglo-American legal tradition, for more than 800 years."
The resolution states that the Supreme Court decision is "in complete contravention of their own state constitutions and the will of their voters, thus undermining the civil liberties of those states' residents and voters."
A 2024 Gallup poll found that 69% of Americans continue to believe that marriage between same-sex couples should be legal, and 64% say gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable.
Sarah Warbelow, the vice president for legal affairs for the Human Rights Campaign, criticized the Idaho effort.
"This cruel action by Idaho Republicans amounts to nothing more than shouting at the wind," said Warbelow.