Resolution to overturn gay marriage advances

BOISE — Idaho lawmakers have advanced a resolution rejecting the U.S. 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 Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell v. Hodges and “restore the natural definition of marriage, a union of one man and one woman.”

The resolution goes to the full House for a vote.

The two-page resolution refers to Obergefell as an “illegitimate overreach” of authority, as well as an “inversion of the original meaning of liberty” as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.

The emotionally charged committee hearing started with a mass walkout in protest from audience members, with some returning to deliver in-person testimony. Dozens were heard, with an estimated 225 total people signing up to testify on both sides of the matter. 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. Heather Scott, R- Blanchard, said the resolution is based entirely on “federalism” and states’ rights.

“This is about federalism, not defining marriage,” Scott said. “It’s about states’ rights. What if the federal government defined property rights or nationalized water rights? What would that do to Idaho citizens?”

The states’ rights claim received pushback from opponents of the resolution.

Rep. Todd Achilles, D-Boise, expressed his opposition to the rhetoric.

“My concern with the argument around states’ rights is the history associated with it,” Achilles said. “The Confederate states made similar claims to perpetuate slavery. During the Jim Crow era, segregation was justified based on states’ rights. Where do we draw the line?”

Scott replied, “I don’t think anyone in Idaho is discriminating against anyone.”

Same-sex marriage in Idaho predates the Obergefell decision, being legally recognized since 2014 in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case Latta v. Otter.

Marriage laws in the United States have seen many changes, including adjustments allowing married couples to use contraceptives, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), and interracial couples to marry, Loving v. Virginia (1967) — both of which were previously illegal in several states prior to Supreme Court intervention that provided federal-level protections.

Annie Morley, substitute for Rep. Brooke Green, D-Boise, voiced her concerns about what other Supreme Court case rulings could be called into scrutiny.

“You may disagree with the merits of Obergefell,” Morley said. “Should this memorial include Loving, Griswold and Obergefell?”

“I don’t know what you’re referring to,” Scott responded. “We can have all those discussions on whatever other cases you’re talking about, but it needs to be done at the state with the people in a hearing like this, where we can actually hear testimony and make decisions as a state which way we want to go.”

Sue Latta, the plaintiff in Latta v. Otter, testified in opposition to the bill, challenging the claim on marriage as a states’ rights issue.

“We are not asking for special rights, we are asking for equal rights,” Latta said. “We have fought very hard for these rights, and these rights extend beyond the state. 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. 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. “The teachings of my faith compel me to speak against this bill, because it violates core principles of compassion, justice and equality. 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. 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, a former state Republican 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. “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 lobby group, also supported the bill.

“The Supreme Court violated the Constitution,” said Clark. “The state of Idaho has an obligation to hold the court accountable.”

The resolution has attracted interest from out-of-state testifiers as well, with representatives from Mass Resistance and the Pacific Justice Institute testifying remotely. Both organizations have been classified as “anti-LGBT hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

After nearly two hours of testimony, the committee voted along party lines to move the resolution to the House with a do-pass recommendation.

The committee’s two Democrats, Achilles and Morley, were the sole no votes.

“We’ve established that this memorial is less about states’ rights, as it specifically relates to marriage equality,” Achilles said. “By making this statement, we’re saying that this profound institution of marriage is arbitrarily available to some Idahoans, but not others.”

Schwicht may be contacted at newsroom@idahopress.com.