This week, the Idaho House of Representatives took a significant step by approving a resolution that urges the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the landmark 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
This resolution advocates shifting the authority over marriage laws back to the states, and the Idaho Senate is expected to weigh in on this matter soon.
Idaho Family Policy Center’s Influence
Edward Clark, representing the Idaho Family Policy Center, voiced a desire for the state to reinstate laws that reflect a traditional, religious-based definition of marriage.
His organization, which aligns with conservative Christian values, appears to be gaining momentum, as highlighted by Idaho Governor Brad Little’s proclamation of “Christian History Week,” celebrated from November 24 to November 30 last year.
The Idaho Family Policy Center has ambitions to reintroduce biblical teachings in public education, arguing that it is essential for children to have the chance to acknowledge God and learn His Word in school environments.
A petition from the group references former Justice Joseph Story’s opinion from the 1844 case Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, asking why the New Testament, for instance, should not be taught in colleges as a sacred text without commentary.
Interestingly, this push occurs in the shadow of a past court ruling that limited clergy’s ability to teach in institutions established under similar conditions.
Legal Implications of Obergefell
Adding another layer of irony, the Idaho resolution cites the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor, which reinforced that marriage has traditionally been governed by state law.
This ruling invalidated Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, determining that the federal government must grant same-sex couples the same benefits and protections as their heterosexual counterparts.
However, the memorial fails to acknowledge an important point from the Court’s decision, which underscored existing “certain constitutional guarantees.” These guarantees include those laid out in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision, which struck down laws banning interracial marriage and set the stage for Obergefell.
Should the Supreme Court heed the Idaho House’s call and overturn Obergefell, thereby granting states the sole authority to define marriage, questions arise about the implications for Loving.
It’s conceivable that a case could originate in Idaho—perhaps instigated by a local white supremacist—that would bring Loving back into judicial review.
This scenario could be particularly telling in light of Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissenting opinions in both Windsor and Obergefell.
That said, any such case might face hurdles regarding legal standing.
A state could attempt to impose a ban on same-sex marriages, similar to the tactics employed by former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore after Obergefell.
If a couple sought to challenge such a ban in court, it could escalate into a significant legal battle.
Public Sentiment and Legislative Actions
What’s telling is that the Idaho Legislature isn’t pursuing an outright constitutional challenge; their appeal to the Supreme Court appears more symbolic, aligning with specific political agendas.
According to data from the 2020 Census, Idaho was home to 2,195 same-sex married couples.
In 2022, Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act, which repealed the Defense of Marriage Act and mandated that both federal and state authorities recognize concerning same-sex and interracial marriages.
Notably, a poll from 2023 revealed that 59% of Idaho residents support same-sex marriage.
As for Governor Brad Little’s office, it has chosen to remain silent regarding the memorial, a stance that is likely due to the sensitive nature of this contentious topic.
Source: Religionnews