Idaho Republicans' resolution to repeal marriage equality is 'foreshadowing' for the U.S.
LGBTQ+ groups in Idaho have a warning for the rest of the nation — you could be next.
Keep up with the latest in + news and politics.
Republican legislators in the state introduced a resolution earlier this month urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that established national marriage equality. The measure, House Joint Memorial 1, claims the Supreme Court overstepped its authority by requiring states to recognize same-sex marriages, and calls for a return to the so-called 'natural definition' of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
While the resolution is nonbinding — meaning it carries no legal weight — "it is harmful nonetheless because it is a clear statement to LGBTQ+ communities that they are undeserving of equal access to rights that are afforded to anyone else," according to the ACLU of Idaho.
"The legislature's purpose in introducing a toothless statement such as this one is to intimidate, ostracize, and bully gay and queer people," a spokesperson for the organization told The Advocate. "However, they cannot do that effectively if our communities refuse to tolerate this kind of bigotry, and we will support Idahoans in fighting back against bad legislation."
The GOP's insistence on pushing legislation targeting the LGBTQ+ community is not in line with their voters' stated priorities, as recent election exit polls indicate the biggest concerns were inflation, jobs, the economy, threats to democracy, abortion, and Project 2025.
North Idaho Pride Alliance Executive Director Sarah Lynch and Board President Sam Koester said that they are "appalled" the state legislature would target "LGBTQIA+ people and our rights on day one of the legislative session" instead of focusing the issues important to their constituents.
"Rather than address any of the many issues facing Idahoans today, the Idaho Legislature has chosen the fiscally irresponsible route of using Idaho taxpayer dollars to single out LGBTQIA+ people for separate and unequal treatment," they said. "They are setting the stage for another discriminatory legislative session by issuing a memorial to the Supreme Court that makes bigoted statements against same-sex marriages and questions the sound legal precedent set by the Obergfell and Windsor cases, as well as a separate resolution that encourages anti-trans actions in universities."
When the conservative Supreme Court majority created by Donald Trump overturned the national right to abortion in 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion at the time that the court should also revisit and overrule decisions that prevent state restrictions on contraception, marriage equality, sodomy, and other private consensual sex acts, calling the rulings "demonstrably erroneous." Pride Foundation CEO Katie Carter said that the Idaho GOP's resolution is emblematic of their party's desire to roll back civil rights across the board.
"Idaho has repeatedly been a testing ground for anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and attacks against our community, setting a precedent for similar efforts across the country," Carter said. "This resolution, while non-binding, amounts to an amplified cultural attack against our community — and a foreshadowing of what's to come for LGBTQ+ people across the United States."
"We must recognize this as a deliberate, coordinated strategy to dismantle brick by brick the hard-won progress we have made, forcing our fight back to hostile state legislatures," she continued. "Now, more than ever, we need to stand together against all of the regressive moves made against LGBTQ+ people — from attempts to take away marriage equality, to the ongoing attacks on trans and non-binary people so that every LGBTQ+ person can live with dignity and freedom to show up as our whole selves, in Idaho and all the places we call home."
Boise Pride, the organization behind the largest Pride celebration in the state, encouraged Idahoans "to raise their voices and stand in solidarity against this blatant attack on equality," saying to "call your representatives" and "join local actions and support organizations fighting for LGBTQ+ rights."
"This attempt to undermine the fundamental rights of LGBTQ+ individuals is not only unjust, but a direct attack on love, equality, and human dignity. ... Any attempt to roll back these protections is a betrayal of the progress we've made and a dangerous step backward," a spokesperson said. "This is not just about marriage — it's about the right to be seen, valued, and respected as equal members of society. We refuse to stand by while lawmakers try to strip away the fundamental rights of our community. ... Together, we can and must ensure that love wins — now and always."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
33 minutes ago
- Fox News
GOP Senator Ron Johnson says he's 'trying to force reality' on DC
When it comes to the nation's federal government, GOP Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin is "not a fan." He believes that it "causes or exacerbates more problems than it actually solves," telling Fox News Digital during an interview on Wednesday that the bulk of his oversight is "to expose how awful government is" in order to obtain "public support for reducing it, limiting its size, limiting its cost, limiting its influence over our lives." "As our federal government grows, our freedoms recede," he said. "You see what the federal government does, how it wastes money." The national debt has ballooned to the eye-watering sum of more than $36 trillion, with lawmakers and presidents from both parties presiding over the deficit spending that has led the nation to this point. Johnson said he's "trying to force reality" upon everyone in the nation's capital, regardless of whether they want to face that reality. He said for decades the nation has been suffering a "chronic debt crisis," illustrating the dramatic decline in the value of the U.S. dollar by noting that "the dollar you held back in 1998 is now only worth $0.51 cents," while "a dollar you held in … 2019 is only worth $0.80 cents." The senator referred to inflation as "the silent tax." But he's certainly not staying silent. Johnson indicated that the elected leaders are mortgaging the future of American children, but "don't talk about it." "I'm forcing everybody to look at it," he said, noting that his "primary role" is to force "acknowledgment of our problem." But as keenly as Johnson advocates the idea of slashing the sprawling tentacles of the massive federal bureaucracy, right now he's just pushing to pare spending down to pre-pandemic levels. The conservative fiscal hawk has been making headlines for taking a stand against the Trump-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act that cleared the GOP-controlled House of Representatives last month. But Johnson told Fox News Digital that he actually likes a lot of the measure. "I'm really not critical of the bill as far as it goes," Johnson explained, noting that he's a "big supporter" of much of what's in it, though he noted that has not read all of it — the measure is more than 1,000 pages long. "My main beef is it just doesn't go far enough," he said, noting that after the COVID-19 pandemic Democrats failed to return to pre-COVID spending and deficit levels. The Congressional Budget Office's estimated budgetary impact for the measure indicates that the net effect on the deficit would be a more than $2.4 trillion increase over the fiscal years 2025-2034. But White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought has said the measure would decrease deficits. "The bill REDUCES deficits by $1.4 trillion over ten years when you adjust for CBO's one big gimmick--not using a realistic current policy baseline. It includes $1.7 trillion in mandatory savings, the most in history. If you care about deficits and debt, this bill dramatically improves the fiscal picture," Vought said in a post on X. Johnson also noted during the interview that there has not been a "reckoning" regarding the "abuse" at all levels of government during the COVID-19 pandemic. He noted that he does not refer to the COVID-19 jab as a vaccine. Instead, he referred to it as an "injection," asserting that it is "not a vaccine," and that it caused injuries and death. The senator said that he thinks the shots should have "black box warnings." The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website states that the "CDC recommends a 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine for most adults ages 18 and older" and claims that the "vaccine helps protect you from severe illness, hospitalization, and death." Johnson, who has served in the Senate since 2011 and won election to a third term in 2022, said he'd prefer not to seek another term in office. "I don't covet this job," he said, noting that he wants to leverage his post to help save America and aid those who are "ignored by the system." While he's not ruling out another run, Johnson, who turned 70-years-old earlier this year, said he'd "be happy" to return to Oshkosh and "live a nice, peaceful life."
Boston Globe
41 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
an hour 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).'
