Idaho Republican lawmakers calling on the Supreme Court to reversing marriage decision of the same sex

On By Littum

Idaho’s Republican-dominated state representatives formally called for the Supreme Court to turn a 2015 decision that worsened a fundamental right for couples of the same sex to marry.

Monday Iowa’s house 46-24 voted to pass a decision who say the legislator rejects the landmark’s decision in Obergefell against Hodges and calls for justice to “restore the natural definition of marriage, an association of a man and a woman.”

The measure does not carry the legal force, but it signalizes how right -wing resistance to LHBT+ rights is Emboldened under Donald Trump’s administration to test the vulnerability of the Supreme Court.

Only 15 house Republicans joined all Idaho Democrats in opposition. The measure is now leading to a state committee for a State Senate for treatment.

“Extremist attacks have become the Rigueur, and LGBTQ+ Americans are entitled to be concerned about their escalation,” Sarah Warbelow, Human Rights Campaign’s Vice President of Legal Affairs, told The lawyer.

“This cruel act from the Idaho Republicans is nothing but shouting at the wind,” Warbelow said. “A majority of Americans in all political attachments support marriage equality. Solutions are not laws, and state legislators lack the power to run marriage equality. “

Supreme Court's decision in 2015 in Obergefell against Hodges wrapped the pair of the same sex to marry
Supreme Court’s decision in 2015 in Obergefell against Hodges wrapped the pair of the same sex to marry (Getty Images?

ACLU from Idaho is “deeply disappointed and frustrated” over the passage of the measure, said communications director Rebecca de Leon the Independent.

A measure expressing a “large and unpopular view of marriage of the same sex is a violation of queer people in this state and is a grip on power that is far beyond the unity of a state,” they said Leon. “Idaho has many real, complex problems that the legislature has to address, and do not waste time on toothless virtue signaling.”

The measure proposed by the GOP state representative Heather Scott and approved by Anti-LGBT+ activists says the Obergefell decision is “contrary to the constitution of the United States and the principles on which the United States are established” and “insist on Restoring the question of marriage and enforcement of all laws relating to marriage back to the various states and the people.

In 2006, Idaho voters adopted a change in the state’s constitution to define marriage as an association between a man and a woman, although the Supreme Court’s decision almost a decade later found that such laws are in violation of the 14th change of equal protection and proper process guarantees .

The Supreme Court’s decision “confused marriage laws and constitutions across the country,” Scott said in comments on the state’s households on Monday.

“This same Supreme Court used this same reasoning to make his decision for a right to privacy on ROE V WADEAnd this is how they justified abortion, which, as we know, was overturned 50 years later, ”she said. “The federal government does not have the authority to just create rights out of thin air.”

After his contemporary opinion in Dobbs against Jackson Women’s Health Organizationthat overturned Beet And revoked a constitutional right to abortion, justice Clarence Thomas suggested that the court could “reconsider” major cases involving “material proper processes”-including court’s landmarks cases involving marriages of the same sex, gay sex and contraception.

“Because any material proper process decision is” detectable wrong “… We have a duty to” correct the error “established in these precedent,” Thomas wrote. “The question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the countless rights that our material proper processes have generated.”

These cases include Griswold V Connecticutwho decided that states had no right to ban contraception; Lawrence against Texasthat struck down laws that banned sex of the same sex; and Obergefell against Hodgeswho ruled that couples of the same sex could legally marry.

After their disagreement in the opinion of DobsLiberal justice Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor claimed that the three cases mentioned by Thomas “are all part of the same constitutional substance that protects autonomous decision making for the most personal of life decisions.”

“So one of two things has to be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history that extend back to the mid -19th century are uncertain, ”they wrote. “Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or further constitutional rights are threatened. It’s one or the other. “