Idaho’s senators believe in liberty and justice for all — unless, of course, you’re gay
Idaho’s two U.S. Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch both voted against the Respect for Marriage Act, a hypocritical vote for two politicians who claim to believe in freedom and liberty for all.
Voting against the Respect for Marriage Act shows they don’t really believe in “liberty and justice for all.” Their votes show they believe in liberty and justice only for those who are straight.
During a campaign debate in October, Crapo said that gay marriage should be a state-by-state decision.
Since same-sex marriage has now been ruled a protected constitutional right in the United States for seven years, it seems a ridiculous notion now that you could be married in Ontario, Oregon, but have that union not be recognized simply by moving 5 miles to the east to Fruitland, Idaho.
Crapo’s argument also illustrates the very need for the Respect For Marriage Act to begin with. Crapo argues that state governments should be able to decide whether a gay person can get married or not. What the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Obergefell case is that gay marriage is a fundamental right protected by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
It’s that same right — the right to privacy — that was used to uphold a woman’s right to an abortion in the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision and which was overturned in Dobbs earlier this year.
And at least one U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, has already indicated that the Supreme Court should reconsider other instances, including gay marriage, that relied on a similar argument of right to privacy.
It’s ironic that Thomas, a Black man married to a white woman, would make such an argument when it wasn’t too long ago that state governments had – and exercised – authority over its residents to ban interracial couples from being married.
That is until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, no, a state government can’t infringe on that freedom.
So Crapo’s argument demonstrates why we need the Respect for Marriage Act, which protects that right from state government interference.
Risch, 79, said on his website that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
He told the Statesman in an email that his position is in line with an amendment to the Idaho Constitution passed by 63% of Idaho voters defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
But that was 2006, and times have changed.
A more recent poll conducted by the Idaho Statesman in October found that 49% of respondents said same-sex marriage should be legal in Idaho. Only 37% said it should be against the law, and 14% said they’re not sure.
The objections to gay marriage tend to fall by the wayside with the passage of time.
In the seven years since Obergefell made gay marriage the law of the land, “traditional” marriage between a man and a woman has not been “destroyed” or “put in danger.”
Families have not been “threatened.” To the contrary, families of same-sex marriage have been strengthened because gay couples now have the same rights afforded by marriage as straight couples.
In Ada County alone, 110 couples have been married in the first 10 months of 2022. They made up 3% of the total marriages. In 2021, 115 same-sex couples were married, and in 2020, 98 same-sex couples were married in Ada County.
Even religious organizations are coming around. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints endorsed passage of the Respect for Marriage Act. The church acknowledged that it does not condone homosexuality, but that religious belief should not be imposed on those who don’t adhere to their beliefs.
The LDS Church gets the concept of not imposing its religious beliefs on others.
Why can’t Idaho’s two U.S. senators?
