Republican lawmakers in Idaho introduced a non-binding resolution calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that forced all 50 states to recognize same-sex 'marriages' and return the issue to the states and to the people.
BOISE, Idaho (LifeSiteNews) – Republican lawmakers in Idaho introduced a resolution asking the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that forced all 50 states to recognize same-sex “marriages.”
Idaho House Joint Memorial 1 argues that Obergefell “is at odds with the Constitution of the United States and the principles upon which the United States is established,” invoking a “definition of ‘liberty that the framers would not have recognized, rejecting the idea captured in the Declaration of Independence that human dignity is innate, and instead suggesting that it comes from the government.”
The precedent “causes collateral damage to other aspects of our constitutional order that protect liberty, including religious liberty,” it argues, including disregarding the authority of state legislatures and the will of the people who elected them, as well as violating the conscience rights of those forced to affirm or participate in homosexual weddings, all in violation of centuries of American and western legal tradition.
The resolution formally “rejects the Obergefell decision”; “calls upon the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse Obergefell and restore the natural definition of marriage, a union of one man and one woman”; and “insists on restoring the issue of marriage and enforcement of all laws pertaining to marriage back to the several states and the people.”
While not legally binding in any way, if passed it would formally register the Idaho Legislature’s displeasure with the status quo and hopefully inspire counterparts in other states to add their weight to demands for the nation’s highest court to revisit the issue.
“I see this as not an issue on same-sex marriage but on judicial activism and states’ rights,” Republican state Rep. Bruce Skaug said.
The House State Affairs Committee voted unanimously in favor of introducing the resolution, with Democrats on the committee saying they welcome the debate, if not the position.
"Voting to print the bill means we have the chance to debate it, challenge it, and vote against it on the record with our colleagues," Democrat Reps. Todd Achilles and Brooke Green said in a joint statement.
Not every Democrat agreed, however. House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel and Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow blasted the measure as a “sad distraction” concocted by the “extreme wing of the Republican Party.”
As a practical matter, overturning Obergefell would not change the status quo for marriage. Ever since outgoing President Joe Biden signed the so-called Respect for Marriage Act in December 2023, federal law codifies Obergefell’s denial of states’ ability to recognize only male-female unions as marriage. But reversing the 2015 precedent would clear the way for states to set their own marriage laws again if the Respect for Marriage Act is ever repealed.
Three of the current sitting justices -- Chief Justice John Roberts and conservatives Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- dissented from Obergefell. The latter two are considered reliable votes to overturn if the chance arises, given statements both have made in the years since. But it is less certain how Roberts and the Court’s three more recent Republican appointees would rule, given their views of precedent and mixed records on cases important to conservatives.
Social conservatives are likely to have an uphill battle on the issue for the foreseeable future. In July 2024, the Republican Party adopted a dramatically shortened national platform with various changes sought by returning President Donald Trump. Among them was removing language declaring that “Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society,” and calling for that understanding to be reflected in law, including with the “reversal” of Obergefell as judicial activism.
