The House State Affairs Committee overwhelmingly passed a resolution asking the Supreme Court to overturn its 2015 Obergefell vs. Hodges decision, which gave same-sex couples the right to marry nationwide.
On Wednesday, Rep. Heather Scott (R-Blanchard) defended the measure saying it was not about defining marriage – but about states’ rights.
“Rights are unalienable and they come from God and they don't come from government. So if we start down this road where the federal government or the judiciary decides that they're going to create rights for us, then they can take rights away.” Scott said. She also said she did not believe marriage was a fundamental right.
During public comments, Mistie DelliCarpini-Tolman talked about how repealing same sex marriages would affect her wife and children.
“If something happened to me, would my wife have to fight to be able to make medical decisions?” she said. “If this law passes, would my kids lose their health insurance? Would our family lose the simple dignity of being recognized for what we are?”
“We are families who love each other just like you do,” Tolman added. ”Please don't make my family a casualty of politics. We deserve the same love, dignity and protection as everyone else.
Most public comments opposed the resolution.
Rep. Todd Achilles (D-Boise) pushed back on the language of the text, saying it claimed to defend liberty while stripping it away from same sex couples.
“By making this statement, we're saying that this profound institution of marriage, which represents the highest principles of devotion, of sacrifice, of family, of love, is arbitrarily available to some Idahoans, but not others,” he said, noting Idaho also prohibited interracial marriage from 1863 to 1959 and restricted marriage to one man and one woman from 2006 to 2014.
In 2022, about 2% of marriage licenses issued by the state went to same sex couples, according to the Department of Health and Welfare.
“And as we heard from testifiers today, Idaho is unquestionably better for it,” Achilles added.
But Scott argued the decision should be returned to the states.
“It's about federalism, it's about judicial activism, and it's about voters that have lost their voice,” she added.
The resolution was passed 13 to 2 and now goes to the full House for further debate.