© 2021 Boise State Public Radio

For assistance accessing our public files, please contact us at boisestatepublicradio@boisestate.edu or call (208) 426-3663.
WebHeader_3.png
NPR in Idaho
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Available On Air Stations
What is the single most important question about COVID-19 you think needs to be answered? Submit it for a special Idaho Matters Doctors Roundtable in English and Spanish.
Politics & Government
Amber and Rachael filed their lawsuit against Idaho in Nov. 2013. They were married Oct. 15, 2014.In November 2013, eight women -- four couples -- sued the state of Idaho over its 2006 voter-approved constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.The plaintiffs, Susan Latta and Traci Ehlers, Lori Watsen and Sharene Watsen, Shelia Robertson and Andrea Altmayer, and Amber Beierle and Rachael Robertson, say Idaho's ban on same-sex marriage violates equal protection and due process guarantees.Two of the couples have been legally married in other states and two have tried to get Idaho marriage licenses and been denied.Their case went to U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale in May 2014. On May 13, eight days after Dale heard the case, she struck down Idaho's same-sex marriage ban.Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden appealed that ruling in an effort to uphold Idaho's Constitution as approved by voters in 2006.On Oct. 7, 2014, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Dale's ruling, striking down Idaho's ban on same-sex marriage. After more than a week of legal challenges, same-sex marriages began Oct. 15, 2014 in Idaho.

Idaho Attorney General Wasden Will Continue To Defend State's Gay Marriage Ban

WasdenLawrence_media-214x300.jpg
State of Idaho
/

Unlike his counterpart in Virginia, Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden says his personal views on same-sex marriage are irrelevant when it comes to defending the state's Constitution. It’s safe to say Wasden and Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring look at their jobs very differently. 

Herring announced last week he would not defend his state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Instead, he’s joining gay couples who are suing the state over the ban. Herring told NPR he thinks the law violates rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Herring, a Democrat, angered Virginia Republicans with his decision. They accuse him of injecting personal beliefs into his job instead of defending a law approved by Virginia voters in 2006.   

Idaho's Attorney General Lawrence Wasden meanwhile won a federal judge’s permission to help the state of Idaho defend its voter-approved ban on gay marriage. Four gay couples are suing the state over its 2006 constitutional amendment that makes it illegal for same-sex couples to wed.

Wasden doesn’t criticize Herring directly, but says he’s critical of “my colleagues who choose to abandon their responsibility to defend the policy choices made by the people.” Wasden says it’s not the job of an attorney general to determine a state law’s constitutionality.

My obligation as the attorney general is to defend the state's view, the people's view. - Lawrence Wasden

“The entity that has the power, authority and responsibility of actually making that determination is the court,” Wasden says. “If I simply decide that I have the power to decide what’s constitutional and what’s not constitutional without regard to what our State Constitution says, I essentially become the king.”

In Virginia, Attorney General Herring says his legal opinion of that state's ban changed as his personal beliefs on gay marriage changed.

Wasden refuses to say where he personally stands on the issue of gay marriage. He says he doesn’t think a state attorney’s view of a particular law effects how vigorously he or she defends it court.

“I have strong views on these things,” Wasden says. “But my obligation as the attorney general is to defend this state’s view, the people’s view.”

Wasden says as long as Idaho's law has a legal leg to stand on, he’ll defend it.

“If there is a policy choice that the people make that there is no defense to, that presents a different issue," Wasden adds. "But there are defenses here and the people are entitled to have their elected lawyer represent their view. Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant.”

Copyright 2014 Boise State Public Radio