Idaho’s delegation had a chance to stand up for marriage and family. Only one took it

It appears that only one member of Idaho’s federal delegation has any regard for the importance of marriage and family.

In late November, the Senate finally crafted a new version of the Respect for Marriage Act that could win bipartisan support. The act requires all states and the federal government to recognize as valid any marriage that was valid in the state it was performed. It also reaffirms specific protections for religious freedom.

In the current legal environment, where the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling requires marriage equality, the bill has no significant effect. But if the U.S. Supreme Court ever overturns Obergefell, which Justice Clarence Thomas has motioned toward, it would mean that states like Idaho — which to our great shame still formally outlaws gay marriage — would have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

No gay family, which has for years relied on its right to be protected within a marriage, would be exposed to the whims of a group of nine unelected justices if they decide to take those rights away, as they did when they overruled Roe v. Wade.

In the U.S. Senate, 12 Republicans joined with Democrats to protect the family and religious freedom. And on Dec. 8, 39 House Republicans did likewise.

But only one of Idaho’s delegation showed any regard for the family.

Not Rep. Russ Fulcher.

Not Sen. Mike Crapo.

Not Sen. Jim Risch.

But Rep. Mike Simpson did, casting Idaho’s lone vote in favor of the act.

“I have always strongly supported states’ rights and the authority of states to make their own laws when it comes to issuing marriage licenses,” Simpson wrote in an op-ed. “But I also take marriage seriously, and to me, suggesting that someone’s marital status depends on where they happen to live at that moment denigrates the institution of marriage. Can you imagine Micron trying to recruit an exceptional employee who has been married for several years and then telling them that when they move to Idaho, they suddenly won’t be married anymore? It is ridiculous to suggest that we ‘unmarry’ them when they cross the state lines.”

Well said.

It’s hard to take seriously any objection that the bill would endanger religious freedom, especially because it got so much support from conservative religious groups.

Numerous religious institutions spoke favorably about the bill, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Orthodox Union, which represents many orthodox synagogues.

Many churches that belong to these organizations refuse to perform gay marriages. But, importantly, they do not require that their religious views be written into the laws of the state.

Because freedom is a two-way street. You can only be free to live according to your conscience to the degree that you allow others to live according to theirs.

All that aside, there is good reason, independent of anyone’s religious beliefs, to protect marriage.

Long-term committed relationships, often including raising children, are vital for the future of any society. This is a truth Simpson understands, but the rest of our delegation seems happy to ignore.

The state does have a legitimate interest in marriage. That’s why it ought to protect certain special rights that married couples have — hospital visitation, property rules, legal privileges, etc. And there isn’t a single, solitary distinction between gay and straight couples when it comes to those rules.

Except for discrimination. If you are sufficiently interested in discriminating against gay people, that can be a reason to oppose marriage equality.

Simpson has shown what his priorities are: He wants to protect religious liberty and marriage.

Fulcher, Crapo and Risch have shown what their priorities are. They want to engage in discrimination — or at least they want to be seen engaging in discrimination for the sake of votes. That is their overriding concern.