An unnecessary fight over gay marriage

A 'memorial' is useless, and legislators know it

Lawmakers shouldn’t waste people’s time with controversies that, in the end, don’t amount to a hill of beans Still, I have a feeling that’s exactly what’s in store for us when Idaho’s Legislature convenes in January as lawmakers attempt to reprise one of last session’s the most pointless debates.

Photo by Sandy Millar on Unsplash

In the very early days of the 2025 session, the House of Representatives took up the issue of gay marriage. Proponents and opponents of gay marriage were little served by House Joint Memorial 1 (HJM 1), which begins with:

WHEREAS, the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges … is at odds with the Constitution of the United States and the principles upon which the United States is established; …

The Obergefell decision is the one in which the court superseded any state laws to the contrary and ruled that gay marriage is constitutionally protected, essentially nullifying Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional declaration that marriage is exclusively for one man and one woman. The memorial continues, in part:

WHEREAS, Obergefell requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages 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; and

WHEREAS, marriage as an institution has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman for more than two thousand years, and within common law, the basis of the United States' Anglo-American legal tradition, for more than eight hundred years; and

WHEREAS, Obergefell arbitrarily and unjustly rejected this definition of marriage in favor of a novel, flawed interpretation of key clauses within the Constitution and our nation's legal and cultural precedents; and

WHEREAS, since court rulings are not laws and only legislature selected by the people may pass laws, Obergefell is an illegitimate overreach.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the First Regular Session of the Sixty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein, that the Idaho Legislature rejects the Obergefell decision.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Idaho Legislature calls upon the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse Obergefell and restore the natural definition of marriage, a union of one man and one woman.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Idaho Legislature insists on restoring the issue of marriage and enforcement of all laws pertaining to marriage back to the several states and the people.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives be, and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the Supreme Court of the United States.

A “joint memorial,” in the parlance of the Idaho Legislature, is not a bill, but rather little more than a strongly worded letter. Lawmakers historically looked at these memorials with disdain, a “handkerchief in the wind,” they would call them. Passage does not convey any force of law. In my 30 years of watching the state Legislature, I can’t think of a single time a joint memorial moved the needle on a single subject.

In this case, HJM 1 passed the House and did not get a hearing in the state Senate. But had it done so, and had it passed there, it would have no force or effect except to direct legislative staff to send a letter to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Once there, however, it is highly doubtful that the court would have done anything more with it than put it in a file in some office somewhere. Idaho lawmakers’ half-hearted effort was not going to be the maneuver that sparked the court to reconsider its decision in regard to gay marriage. Chief Justice John Roberts was never going to stop everything and put a reconsideration of the Obergefell decision on the docket because Idaho sent a strongly worded letter.

I don’t doubt that there are legislators who sincerely have an issue with the idea of two men or two women getting married. Or the government’s resources being used to validate such marriages. But the memorial had zero chance to change any of that. And lawmakers knew it.

But the public didn’t. Some Idahoans have no understanding that a memorial is, as we used to say in the south, “as useless as tits on a boar hog.” They thought there was really something at stake here.

It probably made some married gay couples believe that their unions were at risk, and it probably made some supporters of traditional marriage believe there was a chance of changing the state of affairs when it comes to marriage. That’s why so many people turned out for a hearing on the matter. But the fact is, the threat or thrill of something consequential happening was all illusionary. The outcome was never in doubt. And if the memorial is brought back in 2026, the same will be true.

So what was HJM 1 all about, really? It was about making political noise on the issue of gay marriage. It’s about getting legislators on record, and, by extension, to fan the fire of discontent between supporters of same-sex marriage and opponents. Nothing more. Nothing less. It was all theater.

For paid subscribers, below you will find additional thoughts on the issue, the Idaho Freedom Foundation’s position on it, and a real meaningful steps the state can take regarding marriage in 2026: