My Thoughts Are With Idaho
In November, Idaho voters will be asked the following question:
Shall Article III of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended by the addition of a new Section 28, to provide that a marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state?
“In an absolute heartbeat, I would give my own life for theirs. To me, that is love, and love makes a family. Please think deeply about the proposal before you now. Just because my family make-up is different from yours, does not make us any less a family.” - Sara Seidl of Boise spoke on behalf of her partner and their two children (source)
I feel the same way about my family. I loved growing up in Idaho. I know many of you won’t understand this, but there is a magic about Idaho. The state has a vast wealth of diversity - at least in terms of terrain. There is desert, mountains, wilderness, and everything in between. And for the most part, my memory tells me that the people were nice as well - most of them.
That’s why this is so painful. Today the Idaho Senate passed a state constitutional amendment that will ban marriage equality for gay couples, along with civil unions. It now goes to the people of Idaho who will vote on the measure in November. It needs a simple majority to become part of the Idaho Constitution. I expect it will pass, probably with the comfortable majority that we saw in Texas. I’ve come to the conclusion that society just does not understand us, or what we are looking for. I’ve given up hope trying to get them to understand.
And yes, I said that I would not be covering all of this negative coverage of marriage amendments going on in the news, but Idaho is different for me. It was my childhood. It was my young adulthood. I wonder now if the great majority of the good people of Idaho always hated gay people. I wonder if all of that was just below the surface. I think it was, and I just didn’t really want to believe it. And when my own family goes to the polls in November, my bet is that 98% of them will vote for passage of this hateful amendment.
Five Republican senators changed their minds this year after helping to defeat the measure last year, a phenomenon attributed by some as a reaction to political pressures.
“In politics, you always want to find an evil that’s a minority so there’s not a lot of votes (at stake),” said Sen. Gary Schroeder, R-Moscow. “This is all about politics and votes.” (source)
As for me, I will never set foot in Idaho again, and that is very sad for me. I just can’t bring myself to do it. To the people of Idaho, please do some soul searching. You are the only thing in the way of intolerance and hatred. This will be your legacy. And in a hundred years or so, future generations will see this act for what it is.
BOISE - The Idaho State Senate has approved a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Idaho, sending the matter to voters this November.
The 26 to nine vote met the required two-thirds vote. Now it only needs simple majority vote from the public to pass. (source)
We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must no break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. - Abraham Lincoln
We can hope that someday the better angels of our nature will come forth. In a few months, we will see if this will happen in Idaho.
The complete language of the bill is given below...
HJR002.....................................................by STATE AFFAIRS
MARRIAGE - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Idaho to provide that a marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.
01/24 House intro - 1st rdg - to printing
01/25 Rpt prt - to St Aff
02/02 Rpt out - rec d/p - to 2nd rdg
02/03 2nd rdg - to 3rd rdg
02/06 3rd rdg - PASSED - 53-17-0
AYES -- Anderson, Andrus, Barraclough, Barrett, Bastian, Bayer, Bedke, Bell, Bilbao, Black, Block, Bolz, Brackett, Bradford, Cannon, Chadderdon, Clark, Collins, Crow, Deal, Denney, Edmunson, Ellsworth, Eskridge, Field(18), Field(23), Garrett, Hart, Harwood, Henderson, Lake, Loertscher, Mathews, McGeachin, McKague, Moyle, Nielsen, Nonini, Raybould, Roberts, Rydalch, Sali, Schaefer, Shepherd(2), Shepherd(8), Shirley, Smith(24), Smylie, Snodgrass, Stevenson, Wills, Wood, Mr. Speaker
NAYS -- Boe, Henbest, Jaquet, Kemp, LeFavour, Martinez, Miller, Mitchell, Pasley-Stuart, Pence, Ring, Ringo, Rusche, Sayler, Skippen, Smith(30), Trail
Absent and excused -- None
Floor Sponsor - Denney
Title apvd - to Senate
02/07 Senate intro - 1st rdg - to St Aff
02/13 Rpt out - rec d/p - to 2nd rdg
02/14 2nd rdg - to 3rd rdg
02/15 3rd rdg - PASSED - 26-9-0
AYES -- Andreason, Brandt, Broadsword, Bunderson, Burtenshaw, Cameron, Compton, Corder, Darrington, Davis, Fulcher, Gannon, Geddes, Goedde, Hill, Jorgenson, Keough, Little, Lodge, Marley, McGee, McKenzie, Pearce, Richardson, Sweet, Williams
NAYS -- Burkett, Coiner, Kelly, Langhorst, Malepeai, Schroeder, Stegner, Stennett, Werk
Absent and excused -- None
Floor Sponsor - Geddes
Title apvd - to House
02/16 To enrol
02/17 Rpt enrol - Sp signed
Bill Text
|||| LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO ||||
Fifty-eighth Legislature Second Regular Session - 2006
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2
BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
1 A JOINT RESOLUTION
2 PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF
3 IDAHO, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 28, ARTICLE III, TO PROVIDE THAT A
4 MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN IS THE ONLY DOMESTIC LEGAL UNION THAT
5 SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED IN THIS STATE; STATING THE QUESTION TO BE
6 SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE; DIRECTING THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TO PREPARE
7 THE STATEMENTS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO
8 PUBLISH THE AMENDMENT AND ARGUMENTS AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
9 Be It Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:
10 SECTION 1. That Article III of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be
11 amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION, to be known and designated
12 as Section 28, Article III, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho and to
13 read as follows:
14 SECTION 28. MARRIAGE. A marriage between a man and a woman is
15 the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in
16 this state.
17 SECTION 2. The question to be submitted to the electors of the State of
18 Idaho at the next general election shall be as follows:
19 "Shall Article III, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended
20 by the addition of a new Section 28, to provide that a marriage between a man
21 and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized
22 in this state?".
23 SECTION 3. The Legislative Council is directed to prepare the statements
24 required by Section 67-453, Idaho Code, and file the same.
25 SECTION 4. The Secretary of State is hereby directed to publish this pro-
26 posed constitutional amendment and arguments as required by law.
Statement of Purpose / Fiscal Impact
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
RS 15639
The language of this bill, including the term "domestic legal union" is intended to protect marriage as being only between a man and a woman.
It is intended to prohibit recognition by the State of Idaho, or any of its political subdivisions, of civil unions, domestic partnerships, or any other relationship that attempts to approximate marriage, no matter how denominated. The language is further intended to prohibit the State of Idaho, or any of its political subdivisions, from granting any or all of the legal benefits of marriage to civil unions, domestic partnerships, or any other relationship that attempts to approximate marriage.
It is the intent that the language of this bill shall not (a) interfere with the ability of persons or entities to enter into
private contracts; (b) interfere with the ability of a person to provide for the disposition of their property at death, including through wills or trusts; (c) interfere with the ability of a person to name representatives, including financial or medical powers of attorney, or to choose guardians or conservators, through the means provided by the statutes of the State of Idaho.
FISCAL NOTE
The fiscal impact to the General Fund will be $50,000.00 (fifty
thousand dollars) to cover costs of placing the measure on the
ballot.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: My Thoughts Are With Idaho.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://billandkent.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1853
4 Comments
Leave a comment
I've heard it called "feelin' blue in a red state". I live in Oklahoma. I love the (mostly) friendly, (mostly) kind people, the red, dry clay and the smell of our "sage-y", humid air. I live in Oklahoma -and although I truly love the people and the state- sometimes it's very difficult to love.
Oklahoma has already passed a similar "marriage act". Why would we pass laws to TAKE AWAY rights? Why would we pass laws based on hate? Do people want to protect the rights of certain people, or do they want to deny the rights of certain people?
Explain to me how allowing two people of the same gender --who love each other totally and faithfully, who have established and presented themselves as a couple and as a family, who live together faithfully... and who would be allowed to enjoy the same legal "rights" (to be considered "family" when only family can visit a person in ICU at the hospital, to make medical and/or financial decisions for each other, to be included in family health insurance plans, etc...)-- explain to me how treating these two people with kindness and respect will hurt the 56 year marriage of my parents. How will legally acknowledging this same-gender (SG) relationship hurt another's LEGAL relationship or partnership or whatever you want to call it. We're not talking about having the SG relationship accepted by a particular religion. This is not a religious question or religious decision. Marriage is a LEGAL contract. A couple may decide to make a more personal, religious contract and to maybe have a religious ceremony; however, remember that a marriage is a legal contract. A male/female couple doesn't have to have a religious ceremony in order for their marriage to be legal or recognized. This type of marriage is a civil union that should be available to ALL people.
Frequently, "The Very Conservatives" try to confuse the issue with (stupid) questions like "Well, what if they want to legalize marriage with children?" or "What if they try to legalize marriage with animals?" I don't know if they're just sick, just stupid, or both. I do know, however, that these kinds of strange comparisons greatly cloud the real issue.
Oklahoma even passed a law (I believe that a test case may have had this recently overturned, however) that so little valued families and children --only valued their own narrow-minded "beliefs"-- that they would not recognize same-gender parents (who had adopted in another state) who moved to Oklahoma. Only one parent would be recognized. How does this help the children? Do the people who voted this way really care for the children, really value families?
Matthew Fox spoke here recently. He talked about one of his more recent books in which he has listed 95 theses; one of these is (paraphrased) that homosexuality is NOT a religious question. . . it is a scientific question. In his speech, he gave as a thoughtful comparison, the Dark Ages question of whether the sun revolved around the earth (as the Church believed) or whether the earth revolved around the sun. Everyone in Medieval Europe knew the Bible taught that man and the earth were at the center of the universe. How many people were tortured and killed (or at the least, excommunicated) over this question? Fox says that this was NOT a religious question, but a scientific question. As with the question of the earth or the sun being the "revolver" or the "revolved around", homosexuality is NOT a religious question, but a scientific one. Approximately 7%-10% (MOL depending on research) of every species is homosexual. This has nothing to do with religion, or with "right" and "wrong". It just is. It's scientific, not religious.
The practice of homosexuality was a felony in the state of Oklahoma a decade ago. I'm not sure of the status of that law now; I've heard that it may now be only a misdemeaner, having been affected by a Supreme Court ruling, but I don't know definitely. (Are we going to hell in a handbasket?)
In my lifetime, the law was changed in this state to allow women to sit on a jury! (Are our morals deteriorating?) Only a few decades ago, the Bible was used to support laws against bi-racial marriages. (Is/was this a religious question?) My grandmother was given the right to vote by a federal amendment to the Constitution. The Bible had been used to justify the delay of the passage of this freedom. (Any decent woman of marrying age would be married, and any decent married woman would be sensible enough to vote the way her husband voted, anyway...so why did "good" women need to vote?) Was that when our society went wrong?
Now back to my first question: how does the marriage of any two people --same-gender or man/woman-- hurt any other marriage? A marriage is a legal contract, not a religious one. If you're worried about your own marriage, then work on it... focus on it. (There's humor and realism in those bumper stickers that say "Focus on your own damn family".)
If you're still reading, my last thought is about those bumper stickers that say "The Bible says it, I believe it and that's it." Which version of which Bible? Who decided which writings would go into it? When were these writings found? Who wrote them? How/who/when (and even why? in some cases) were these interpreted? ... into what languages and from what languages? Even if we could and did accurately interpret all of these, what about interpretation within their correct social context(s)? ...or their correct/authentic idioms, vernaculars....? Did the people who found these writings in various places at various times have their own "agenda"? Were ALL of the writings found? Were ALL that were found "sacred and/or "inspired"? What "leaders" omitted what parts, misinterpreted, changed, and/or destroyed what parts? Just because someone or ones centuries ago did a "pick and choose" among certain writings that had survived, been found so far, etc.... at what time, by whom, why and how was it decided which ancient writings would become "the" Bible? Were these perfect, conclusive decisions? Who would you trust today to make similar decisions in similar circumstances with similar discovered writings? Have you seriously thought about this, prayed about this?
Finally, one last thought, almost a cliche' now, about people who are worried about gay parents that they believe are raising gay children. Remember the biology lesson: it's heterosexual parents that produce homosexual children.
You know how I'm going to vote Bill. I'm the 2%.
Love Mike
Mary... you better be careful... you are starting to sound like an "activist". ;-)
I don't want to give up either, but it's so damn frustrating. Either people really do hate us (which a big part of me refuses to believe... still), or our community just hasn't done a very good job at getting out there and convincing people. I guess it all takes time.
And now the practical part of me is wondering if we should just give in and get what we can get in Connecticut (civil unions). I read today that a male couple in Oklahoma was together for 30 years, raised four children, and 50 head of cattle. One of them died recently. He left everything he had to his partner. A "distant cousin" (as the article stated), came in and challenged the will. The will was ruled invalid by a court and the cousin got everything. It makes you wonder if you should just give in and take what you can get.
I refuse to give in. My Idaho family (husband, father-in-law and myself) will be voting against this amendment, and all of the people I consider my friends will, as well. The legislators voting for the legislation are generally from rural parts of the state, and the legislation could pass, due to those same rural areas. I will give this my best shot, though. A group of like-minded people have joined to form a PAC around this issue, and we intend to elect legislators that believe in equal rights. It's time to stand up and fight for what we believe in, and to be public with our beliefs.