.

Resolutions are not laws, and state legislatures lack the power to dismantle marriage equality.

In my denomination, we've been doing queer weddings since well before it was legal, and we will continue to do them well after."

The Idaho House argues that "marriage as an institution has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman for more than two thousand years, and within common law, the basis of the United States' Anglo-American legal tradition, for more than 800 years."

The resolution states that the Supreme Court decision is "in complete contravention of their own state constitutions and the will of their voters, thus undermining the civil liberties of those states' residents and voters."

A 2024 Gallup poll found that 69% of Americans continue to believe that marriage between same-sex couples should be legal, and 64% say gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable.

Sarah Warbelow, the vice president for legal affairs for the Human Rights Campaign, criticized the Idaho effort.

"This cruel action by Idaho Republicans amounts to nothing more than shouting at the wind," said Warbelow.

Bruce Skaug (R-Nampa), an attorney who supported the resolution’s introduction, focused on that particular aspect of the legislation.

“I see this as not an issue on same-sex marriage, but on judicial activism and states’ rights,” Skaug said.

No one else spoke in favor or in opposition of its introduction Tuesday.

Lawmakers on the House State Affairs Committee, including both Democrats, unanimously voted to introduce it.

Reps.

Otter, testified in opposition to the bill, challenging the claim on marriage as a states’ rights issue.

“We are not asking for special rights, we are asking for equal rights,” Latta said. Jackson Women's Health Organization that overturned the federal right to abortion.

Thomas, who issued a dissenting opinion in 2015 against same-sex marriage, wrote in 2022, "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

“It’s about states’ rights. This bill not only harms same-sex couples, it sets a dangerous precedent of using government authority to impose one narrow religious interpretation of marriage on all people.”

Views on same-sex marriage remain divided among religious practitioners. "A majority of Americans of all political affiliations support marriage equality.

There are federal implications to our ability to be married.”

Debates on religion, scripture interpretation and morality dominated the hearing, with representatives from different religious organizations also testifying in opposition to the resolution. Connecticut overturned state restrictions on the use of contraceptives.

The 14th Amendment states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Respect for Marriage Law signed by former President Joe Biden in 2022 guarantees the federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages and acts as a limited remedy if the Supreme Court were to overrule the Obergefell precedent.

“The Confederate states made similar claims to perpetuate slavery. During the Jim Crow era, segregation was justified based on states’ rights.

The majority of in-person testifiers spoke against the resolution, detailing experiences with friends and family, personal struggles with their own identities and state and religious separation.

Rep. "We understand that queer and trans people have been here and have existed in times when oppression has been great and where we have had to hide, but we have never ceased to exist ...

A Pew Research religious landscape study found that there was a nearly even divide between Christians in favor of and against same-sex marriage, with younger generations being more likely to accept gay marriage.

Advocates for the resolution argued that Idaho is obligated to challenge the Supreme Court’s decision on the premise of federal overreach and religious observance.

Julianne Young, former state representative from Blackfoot, said she supported the resolution because of her beliefs on marriage and family.

“This act of sheer judicial hubris has effectively undefined marriage,” Young said.

“The teachings of my faith compel me to speak against this bill, because it violates core principles of compassion, justice and equality.