Tax bill has a lesson: Idaho must remove bigoted marriage clause from constitution
Last week, a bill that conforms Idaho’s tax law to federal law — a simple measure meant to make state income taxes easy to file — ran into opposition on the House floor.
The issue was not about the level of the standard deduction or some other provision that would impact taxpayers. The issue was that federal law extends the same tax benefits to all married couples whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex.
The issue was bigotry.
Some lawmakers — most but not all on the far right — wanted to take the opportunity to remind gay couples that even if they are now legally protected in Idaho, they are not welcome.
“It’s our job to define morality in this state,” declared Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard — ignorantly.
The Idaho Constitution gives the Legislature absolutely no power to “define morality.” What would that even mean? The section of the constitution Scott referred to deals with temperance — that is, limitation on the consumption of alcohol. But she’s a bully, not a constitutional scholar, so the misunderstanding isn’t surprising.
Since Obergefell v. Hodges, it has been recognized that the Equal Protection Clause requires that if legal marriages are offered to different-sex couples, they must also be offered to same-sex couples. But Rep. Ron Nate, R-Rexburg, advocated the state acting to nullify the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and to enforce discrimination against gay couples through the tax code.
Rep. Greg Chaney, R-Caldwell, rightly pointed out the obvious practical problem. Nate might think the state can overrule the U.S. Supreme Court, but the courts universally disagree. Someone will sue. The Republican-dominated Legislature would lose in federal court — its favorite pastime. Taxpayers would foot the bill.
Meanwhile, everyone who pays income taxes would be in limbo, unsure what laws they have to follow when filing their taxes.
“You are going to create a headache for nothing,” Chaney said.
Chaney is absolutely right, and it’s good for every Idaho taxpayer that his more rational viewpoint won the day — the bill Nate opposed passed 46-22.
But there is a more obvious and more fundamental problem involved. The Idaho Constitution is marred by a terrible injustice — Article III, Section 28, which reads: “A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”
It is long past time for the Idaho Legislature to allow voters to decide whether to repeal that vile sentence.
If we do not do this soon, can we imagine the disgust with which our children and grandchildren will view us when they have to do it themselves? Something similar happened just two years ago in Alabama, where two-thirds of voters chose to repeal a portion of their constitution stating: “Separate schools shall be provided for white and colored children, and no child of either race shall be permitted to attend a school of the other race.”
For more than 65 years, that piece of the Alabama Constitution had no legal effect. It simply stood as a monument to white supremacy and racism in the South, as did a portion that barred interracial marriage — until 2020.
It is quite easy to imagine Nate’s debate last week on the tax bill transported into Alabama’s antiquated ban on interracial marriage because the issues are similar.
“We have an oath to uphold,” Nate would say. “Our constitution sets limits on what constitutes a legal marriage, and it does not include miscegenation. Our duty, therefore, is to incorporate this formula from federal law for calculating taxable income, but in such a way that interracial marriages are excluded.
“The Supreme Court may have ruled that this violates the U.S. Constitution, but the states are checks on the federal government, too.”
It’s time for Idaho lawmakers to begin seeing Article III, Section 28 in the same light as Alabama’s enshrinement of segregation or ban on interracial marriage.
But so far, there is little indication that they will.
Another shameful chapter for the history books.