Idaho Republicans Pass Dangerous Measure to Gut Marriage Equality
Idaho's House of Representatives is asking the Supreme Court to undo its decision on same-sex marriage.
The state legislature chamber voted 46–24 Monday in favor of passing House Joint Memorial 1, calling on the Supreme Court to reverse its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges 'and restore the natural definition of marriage, a union of one man and one woman.'
State Representative Heather Scott, a Republican who sponsored the memorial, provided flimsy reasoning behind the measure, saying that the power to define marriage belonged to the states.
'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 during debate on the floor of the state legislature, according to the Idaho Capitol Sun.
'So, what if the federal government redefined property rights or nationalized water rights?' Scott said. '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.'
But the memorial specifically urged the Supreme Court to define marriage, not what the states control.
Scott also claimed that Obergefell undermined religious freedoms and that Christians were being 'targeted.'
Monday's measure was developed by MassResistance, an anti-LGBTQ hate group that is sowing trans panic in state legislatures across the country.
Despite opposition on both sides of the aisle, including 15 Republicans who joined every House Democrat, the GOP was still able to pass the measure because it holds a supermajority in the legislature. The memorial will now head to the Republican-controlled state Senate, and, if it passes, it will become law without needing the governor's signature.
But a memorial is more of a formal letter than a law, and it carries no enforcement power.
If the measure becomes law, it's not clear that the Supreme Court would even be compelled to take up Idaho's question—but it would certainly send a message to the LGBTQ residents of that state.
In 2006, Idaho voters passed an amendment to the state constitution that said that 'marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.' That law was ruled unconstitutional in 2014, the year before Obergefell effectively legalized same-sex marriage by ruling that it was discriminatory to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses.
While the Respect for Marriage Act requires all states to recognize same-sex marriage performed in other states, the right to same-sex marriage was never formally legalized on the federal level. So if the Supreme Court were to overturn Obergefell, gay marriage rights would go with it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
28 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Today in History: June 13, first Pentagon Papers excerpts published
In 1942, during World War II, a four-man Nazi sabotage team arrived by submarine on Long Island, N. Y., three days before a second four-man team landed in Florida. (All eight men were arrested within weeks, after two members of the first group defected.) Advertisement In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled, in Miranda v. Arizona, that criminal suspects had to be informed of their constitutional rights to remain silent and consult with an attorney. In 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall to become the first non-white justice on the US Supreme Court. In 1971, The New York Times began publishing excerpts of the Pentagon Papers, a top secret study of America's involvement in Vietnam since 1945, that had been leaked to the paper by military analyst Daniel Ellsberg. Advertisement In 1983, the US space probe Pioneer 10, launched in 1972, became the first spacecraft to leave the solar system as it crossed the orbit of Neptune. In 1996, the 81-day-old Freemen standoff in Montana ended as the 16 remaining members of the anti-government group left their ranch and surrendered to the FBI. In 2000, the first meeting between leaders of North Korea and South Korea since the Korean War began as South Korean President Kim Dae-Jung met North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il in Pyongyang. In 2013, the White House said it had conclusive evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad's government had used chemical weapons against opposition forces seeking to overthrow him. In 2022, the committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capitol was told that President Trump's closest campaign advisers, top government officials, and even his family were dismantling his false claims of 2020 election fraud ahead of the insurrection, but the defeated president was becoming 'detached from reality' and clinging to outlandish theories to stay in power.
CNN
38 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Supreme Court justices get snippy as key decisions loom
As the Supreme Court bears down on the most contentious stretch of its annual session, the justices have been taking detours in opinions that reveal policy preferences and simmering grievances. When Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered excerpts of a recent decision on environmental regulation from the bench, he segued into a zealous policy-driven admonition about government 'delay upon delay' and the consequences for America's infrastructure. '(T)hat in turn means fewer and more expensive railroads, airports, wind turbines, transmission lines, dams, housing developments, highways, bridges, subways, stadiums, arenas, data centers, and the like,' Kavanaugh went on to write in his opinion. 'And that also means fewer jobs, as new projects become difficult to finance and build in a timely fashion.' Days later, when Justice Clarence Thomas joined a unanimous job-bias ruling, he penned a separate opinion that included an extraneous footnote decrying DEI. 'American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans,' he wrote, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, and referring to a brief from America First Legal Foundation, founded by Stephen Miller, now a top policy adviser to President Donald Trump. 'Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority.' And last week, when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the court's decision giving the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to Social Security Administration data, she stepped back and juxtaposed lower court judges' handling of Trump litigation with that of the conservative high-court majority. She variously described the lower court judges as 'hard at work'; engaged in 'thorough evaluations'; and issuing 'well-reasoned interim judgments.' The Supreme Court's conservative majority, on the other hand, 'dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them.' Jackson has also made clear her disdain for the Trump agenda, referring in one case to its 'robotic rollout' of a policy cancelling teacher grants. Policy preferences have long lurked in the background of Supreme Court opinions, despite Chief Justice John Roberts' insistence that the justices, as 'umpires,' are concerned with the law, not societal consequences. What stands out these days is the willingness to overtly echo political talking points. Conflicts on the law, policy and all else among the justices are likely to deepen as they resolve their most difficult cases before a traditional end-of-June deadline. Still to be decided are disputes over state bans on medical care for transgender youths, parents' ability to remove their elementary-school children from LGBTQ-themed instruction, and the Trump administration's effort to end birthright citizenship. Cases arising from Trump's orders, appealed to the court on its emergency docket rather than the regular oral-argument calendar, will continue beyond this annual session. The justices often split along ideological and political lines. Conservatives Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett were named by Republican presidents; the three liberals, Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan were named by Democratic presidents. Such fault lines emerged in a late May case over Trump's firing of the heads of two independent agencies, the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The dispute filed on the court's emergency docket, among several flowing from dozens of Trump orders since he returned to the White House on January 20, drew widespread public interest because of the possible impact on the Federal Reserve and the country's economy. If Trump had the ability to remove leaders at the two independent labor-related boards, he could arguably fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell, threatening the longstanding independence of the Fed and destabilizing markets. In mid-April, Trump wrote on Truth Social, 'Powell's termination cannot come fast enough.' He blasted Powell for his measured steps on interest rates and for warnings about Trump's sweeping tariffs. On Thursday at the White House, Trump again complained about interest rates, called Powell a 'numbskull,' but said he was not going to fire him. Chief Justice Roberts shepherded the court's action in the case, as the majority issued an order that allowed Trump to remove, at least for the time being, the two board members who'd begun the dispute. The majority then specifically added language to exempt the Federal Reserve. The exception – superfluous to the legal issue at hand – appeared to respond to the political atmosphere and possible criticism that the court's action was endangering the Federal Reserve and US economy. Justice Kagan called out the majority's move as a reaction to the politics of the day. In a dissenting opinion joined by the two other liberals, Kagan condemned the majority for favoring 'the President over our precedent' regarding the removal of agency heads. (A 1935 case, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, limited the president's ability to fire such independent officers.) 'If the idea is to reassure the markets,' Kagan wrote, 'a simpler – and more judicial – approach would have been to deny the President's' appeal for immediate relief. 'Because one way of making new law on the emergency docket (the deprecation of Humphrey's) turns out to require yet another (the creation of a bespoke Federal Reserve exception).'
CNN
38 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Supreme Court justices get snippy as key decisions loom
As the Supreme Court bears down on the most contentious stretch of its annual session, the justices have been taking detours in opinions that reveal policy preferences and simmering grievances. When Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered excerpts of a recent decision on environmental regulation from the bench, he segued into a zealous policy-driven admonition about government 'delay upon delay' and the consequences for America's infrastructure. '(T)hat in turn means fewer and more expensive railroads, airports, wind turbines, transmission lines, dams, housing developments, highways, bridges, subways, stadiums, arenas, data centers, and the like,' Kavanaugh went on to write in his opinion. 'And that also means fewer jobs, as new projects become difficult to finance and build in a timely fashion.' Days later, when Justice Clarence Thomas joined a unanimous job-bias ruling, he penned a separate opinion that included an extraneous footnote decrying DEI. 'American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans,' he wrote, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, and referring to a brief from America First Legal Foundation, founded by Stephen Miller, now a top policy adviser to President Donald Trump. 'Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority.' And last week, when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the court's decision giving the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to Social Security Administration data, she stepped back and juxtaposed lower court judges' handling of Trump litigation with that of the conservative high-court majority. She variously described the lower court judges as 'hard at work'; engaged in 'thorough evaluations'; and issuing 'well-reasoned interim judgments.' The Supreme Court's conservative majority, on the other hand, 'dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them.' Jackson has also made clear her disdain for the Trump agenda, referring in one case to its 'robotic rollout' of a policy cancelling teacher grants. Policy preferences have long lurked in the background of Supreme Court opinions, despite Chief Justice John Roberts' insistence that the justices, as 'umpires,' are concerned with the law, not societal consequences. What stands out these days is the willingness to overtly echo political talking points. Conflicts on the law, policy and all else among the justices are likely to deepen as they resolve their most difficult cases before a traditional end-of-June deadline. Still to be decided are disputes over state bans on medical care for transgender youths, parents' ability to remove their elementary-school children from LGBTQ-themed instruction, and the Trump administration's effort to end birthright citizenship. Cases arising from Trump's orders, appealed to the court on its emergency docket rather than the regular oral-argument calendar, will continue beyond this annual session. The justices often split along ideological and political lines. Conservatives Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett were named by Republican presidents; the three liberals, Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan were named by Democratic presidents. Such fault lines emerged in a late May case over Trump's firing of the heads of two independent agencies, the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The dispute filed on the court's emergency docket, among several flowing from dozens of Trump orders since he returned to the White House on January 20, drew widespread public interest because of the possible impact on the Federal Reserve and the country's economy. If Trump had the ability to remove leaders at the two independent labor-related boards, he could arguably fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell, threatening the longstanding independence of the Fed and destabilizing markets. In mid-April, Trump wrote on Truth Social, 'Powell's termination cannot come fast enough.' He blasted Powell for his measured steps on interest rates and for warnings about Trump's sweeping tariffs. On Thursday at the White House, Trump again complained about interest rates, called Powell a 'numbskull,' but said he was not going to fire him. Chief Justice Roberts shepherded the court's action in the case, as the majority issued an order that allowed Trump to remove, at least for the time being, the two board members who'd begun the dispute. The majority then specifically added language to exempt the Federal Reserve. The exception – superfluous to the legal issue at hand – appeared to respond to the political atmosphere and possible criticism that the court's action was endangering the Federal Reserve and US economy. Justice Kagan called out the majority's move as a reaction to the politics of the day. In a dissenting opinion joined by the two other liberals, Kagan condemned the majority for favoring 'the President over our precedent' regarding the removal of agency heads. (A 1935 case, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, limited the president's ability to fire such independent officers.) 'If the idea is to reassure the markets,' Kagan wrote, 'a simpler – and more judicial – approach would have been to deny the President's' appeal for immediate relief. 'Because one way of making new law on the emergency docket (the deprecation of Humphrey's) turns out to require yet another (the creation of a bespoke Federal Reserve exception).'
