Bill Description: House Joint Memorial 1 would declare the Legislature's rejection of Obergefell v. Hodges, which illegitimately redefined marriage, and call on the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the decision.
Rating: +2
Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the tenth amendment. conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?
House Joint Memorial 1 would declare that Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), "is at odds with the Constitution of the United States and the principles upon which the United States is established." It contains a comprehensive list of reasons why the decision, which "arbitrarily and unjustly rejected" the traditional definition of marriage, was an "illegitimate overreach" and declares that "the Idaho Legislature rejects the Obergefell decision."
It goes on to call upon the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the decision and "restore the natural definition of marriage, a union of one man and one woman."
It is appropriate for states to reject federal overreach and protect the people's rights from being violated through judicial malfeasance. While memorials are primarily an expression of legislative support or disapproval rather than substantive action, perhaps this memorial will lay the groundwork for more concrete steps to restore Idaho's constitutional definition of marriage.
(+1)
Does it promote the breakdown of the traditional family or the deconstruction of societal norms? Examples include promoting or incentivizing degeneracy, violating parental rights, and compromising the innocence of children. Conversely, does it protect or uphold the structure, tenets, and traditional values of Western society?
House Joint Memorial 1 would condemn the Obergefell decision in part by appealing to the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence, saying, "Obergefell invokes a definition of 'liberty' that the framers would not have recognized, rejecting the idea captured in the Declaration of Independence that human dignity is innate, and instead suggesting that it comes from the government."
It also calls out the court's reliance on "dangerous fiction" to reach its conclusion and points out that the decision imposes mandates on the states that are "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."
Memorials do not establish law, but they can serve as important expressions of legislative intent. The Obergefell decision is a quintessential government deconstruction of societal norms. It is thus necessary and proper for states to oppose such judicial activism.
(+1)
