Idaho House calls on U.S. Supreme Court to reverse same-sex marriage ruling
Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, speaks from the House floor at the Statehouse in Boise on Nov. 15, 2021. (Otto Kitsinger for Idaho Capital Sun)
The Idaho House of Representatives on Monday called for the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the 2015 ruling that extended the fundamental right of marriage to same-sex couples.
On Monday, the Idaho House voted 46-24 to pass House Joint Memorial 1.
Although it does not carry the force and effect of law, House Joint Memorial 1 says the Idaho Legislature rejects the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in case of Obergefell v. Hodges and calls on the U.S. Supreme Court to 'restore the natural definition of marriage, a union of one man and one woman.'
Joint Senate and House rules of the Idaho Legislature define a joint memorial as 'A petition or representation made by the House of Representatives and concurred in by the Senate, or vice versa, addressed to whoever can effectuate the request of the memorial.'
Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, sponsored the memorial.
'I would ask you to substitute any other issue and ask yourself, 'Do I want the federal government creating rights for us, for Idahoans,'' Scott said in her floor debate. 'So what if the federal government redefined property rights or nationalized water rights? What does that look like if they came up with some new fair use policy or came up with different ways to define property rights? That is not a decision for the judges; it is a decision for the states.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
During debate on the House floor Monday, Scott repeatedly said marriage is a decision that should be left for the states to decide. But Scott's memorial actually calls on the U.S. Supreme Court – not the states – to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
Scott went on to say the Obergefell decision poses threats to religious liberty. For example, Scott said cake-makers and photographers were pressured to support marriages they don't personally agree with.
'Christians across the nation are being targeted,' Scott said.
All House Democrats and 15 House Republicans opposed House Joint Memorial 1, but it still passed with a comfortable 46-24 margin on Monday.
CONTACT US
Rep. Todd Achilles, D-Boise, voted against the memorial after calling it nothing more than a grumpy letter that will be thrown in the trash.
House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, said calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down its ruling guaranteeing same-sex couples the right to marry is deeply upsetting to many LGBTQ+ Idahoans. Rubel said one of her sons is gay and when he heard about the House Joint Memorial 1 he expressed concern that he would not be able to marry his longterm partner and still live in Idaho.
'It's deeply upsetting to some of those folks, and it makes them not want to live here,' Rubel said. 'These are good people. These are good, law-abiding people who are feeling like their Legislature doesn't want them here and doesn't want them to be able to live the full rights that everybody else can.'
Despite opposition from both parties, House Republicans who control a supermajority were still able to comfortably pass House Joint Memorial 1 by a 46-24 vote.
In 2006, Idaho voters passed an amendment to the Idaho Constitution that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
'A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state,' the Idaho Constitution states.
In 2014 a federal judge ruled the amendment to the Idaho Constitution blocking same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
Then in 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage in Idaho.
House Joint Memorial 1 heads next to the Idaho Senate for consideration. If the Senate takes the memorial up and passes it, it does not require the signature of the governor, like a new law would.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Granholm: Democrats would ‘welcome' Musk ‘helping us out'
Former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said Tuesday that Democrats would 'welcome' tech billionaire Elon Musk 'helping us out' after an intense clash between Musk and President Trump last week. 'I think the Democrats would welcome him helping us out, politically, but — financially, etc.,' Granholm said at Politico's 2025 Energy Summit. 'But, maybe, maybe not, I don't know. I'm not running.' Last Thursday, a fight between Musk and Trump over the president's 'big, beautiful bill' earlier in the week escalated rapidly on Musk's X platform and Trump's Truth Social platform. The president said the tech billionaire 'just went CRAZY!' and threatened Musk's government contracts. Musk alleged that Trump had ties to convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein on X. The public spat followed the end of Musk's recent service in the Trump administration and an alliance with the president that appeared to start off strong. Musk endorsed Trump in July 2024 in the wake of Trump surviving an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania. Musk's administration service was marked by intense backlash from those on the left and Democrats over actions taken by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on the federal government. Trump's ex-personal attorney Michael Cohen on Saturday said that Trump isn't done with tech billionaire Elon Musk yet. 'They're going to really go after Elon Musk like nobody has seen, ever, in this country, because they can,' Cohen told MSNBC's Ali Velshi.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge strikes reference to ex-Illinois speaker Madigan's personal fortune from sentencing record
CHICAGO — A federal judge on Tuesday struck from the court record a reference to former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan's personal net worth of more than $40 million, agreeing with the Democrat's defense team that it should have been kept private, even as the attorneys acknowledged the move was 'hollow' given that it was already widely publicized. U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey said he didn't find any 'bad faith' on the part of the federal prosecutors who included the figure in a filing last week ahead of Madigan's highly anticipated sentencing on Friday, but found that common practice would be to file such personal information under seal. Blakey's ruling came before the attorneys delivered arguments over sentencing guidelines at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse, technically kicking off the sentencing process. Blakey took the matter under advisement until Friday's hearing. Federal prosecutors made Madigan's net worth public for the first time in a response to a sentencing memorandum filed by his attorneys, arguing that the defendant's 'greed is even more appalling given his law firm's success.' Daniel Collins, an attorney for Madigan, called the inclusion of the former speaker's personal fortune improper and a 'gratuitous effort' to publicly identify his net worth. 'It is not necessary to include the number in order for the government to make an argument about greed,' Collins said. But Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Streicker countered to the judge that the defense left the door open by arguing in filings that Madigan was solely motivated by a desire to help people. She also said the figure is relevant as the government seeks a fine in the case. 'It's fair for the government to rebut that narrative and show the defendant was motivated by greed not need,' Streicker said. 'This is a defendant that enjoyed every advantage and significant financial wealth and still turned to bribery and fraud.' In February, Madigan was convicted of 10 of 23 counts, including marquee allegations that he agreed to squeeze lucrative, do-nothing contracts from ComEd for pals such as former Ald. Frank Olivo and Ald. Michael Zalewski and precinct captains Ray Nice and Edward Moody, all while the utility won a series of major legislation victories. Madigan was also convicted on six of seven counts — including wire fraud and Travel Act violations — regarding a plan to get former Ald. Daniel Solis, a key FBI mole who testified at length in the trial, appointed to a state board. Jurors deadlocked on all six counts related to Madigan's co-defendant former ComEd lobbyist Michael McClain. _______
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Another unanimous win for religious freedom at the Supreme Court
Is religious freedom a wedge issue? The unanimous agreement between all the justices in a decision just issued by the U.S. Supreme Court suggests the answer is no. The Court's example provides an important corrective to the framing of some commentators and advocacy groups. The facts of this case initially seem unreal — the state of Wisconsin determined that the Catholic Charities Bureau was not 'religious enough' to qualify for a tax exemption available to religious organizations in the state. Piling on, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed because Catholic Charities did not proselytize or exclude non-Catholics from its services. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has now corrected that decision and ruled unanimously that the state cannot prefer one religion over another on the grounds of the church's teachings. The Court's opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She points out, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' The state had denied the exemption to Catholic Charities simply because the group did not follow the practice of some other churches, which proselytize while providing social services and serve only fellow members. Since doing either of these things would violate the beliefs of the organization, it was treated differently from other religious organizations solely because of this belief. Justice Sotomayor's opinion summarizes the legal standard: 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.' The Court rightly concludes that Wisconsin had no compelling reason that would justify this disparate treatment. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Court's opinion and wrote separately to note another problem with the Wisconsin court's opinion. The Court treated Catholic Charities as separate from the local Catholic Diocese. This is contrary to the 'religious perspective' of the church, which is owed deference by the state. Ignoring the church's beliefs violated the First Amendment guarantee 'to religious institutions [of] broad autonomy to conduct their internal affairs and govern themselves.' Religion and claims for religious freedom are sometimes characterized as divisive issues. When a presidential commission on religious freedom was recently created, some commentators charged that this would undermine the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that religious freedom issues need not be divisive. The clear constitutional protection of the right of people of faith to live and of religious organizations to operate consistent with their beliefs is right there in the text of the First Amendment. This is a threshold principle that no government can ignore without endangering the most basic liberties of its citizens. This is especially true given the fact that verbal expressions of personal faith have defined modern protections for freedom of speech, and gatherings of members of organized religion form the foundations for protections of freedom of association. State and federal lawmakers should ensure that their actions are consistent with this guarantee. Additionally, reporters, commentators, politicians and advocacy groups should take note that protecting religious freedom is typically a consensus issue for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose role is to ensure that the First Amendment guarantee is protected in legal disputes. In the 12 religious freedom cases decided since 2015, four have been unanimous and four more have garnered only one or two dissenting votes. There are, obviously, some cases where the justices don't reach consensus, but these cases should not cause us to lose sight of the strong support religious freedom claims typically receive. The Court's support for religious freedom is a bright spot in our current political climate. It demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers of the Bill of Rights in including specific religious exercise protections and vindicates one of the nation's highest aspirations: that people of faith should be free to act on their beliefs without interference or discrimination.