Idaho Senate weighs marriage amendment (Unbelievable!)

World Net Daily ^ | Feb 1, 2005 | World Net Daily

[Aetius]

QUEERLY BELOVED Idaho Senate weighs marriage amendment Measure is vote short of passage, say proponents

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: February 1, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com The Idaho Senate has scheduled a vote tomorrow on a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would recognize marriage as an institution between one man and one woman – but the measure right now is one vote short of passage, say proponents.

If the measure does not pass, Idaho would become the first state where such an amendment failed. Thirteen states – Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah – passed marriage amendments in 2004.

The Idaho amendment reads: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status similar to that of marriage."

The resolution passed the Senate State Affairs Committee 5-4 Friday morning, after more than three hours of testimony by dozens of proponents and critics.

The proposal needs a two-thirds majority to pass, meaning 12 senators in the 35 member Senate can stop it. According to the Idaho Statesman, 12 senators – six Democrats and six Republicans – are planning to vote no.

Boise Republican Sen. John Andreason said the state's statute prohibiting gay marriage is plenty clear and there is no reason for lawmakers to put gay marriage to voters.

"We're going to be discussing some extremely critical issues in the next election," Andreason told the paper. "I don't think that should be the primary (issue) that we're talking about in the next election."

But the proposal's sponsors say they are still hopeful.

"It's close," said Meridian GOP Sen. Gerry Sweet, one of the bill's leading sponsors. "I've got one different than you. I believe we're there."

If the votes aren't there, the resolution could be amended on the Senate floor to attract more support. A move to do so takes a simple majority of the Senate.

Some lawmakers have talked about being more open to a ban that does not rule out civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Other Republicans reportedly not on board with the amendment are: John Goedde of Coeur d'Alene, Gary Schroeder of Moscow, Charles Cioner of Twin Falls, Joe Stegner of Lewiston and Brad Little of Emmett.

Democrats opposing the amendment include David Langhorst of Boise, Elliot Werk of Boise, Kate Kelly of Boise, Mike Burkett of Boise, Clint Stennett of Kethcum and Edgar Malepeai of Pocatello.

[Aetius]

I almost couldn't believe this when I read it. I hope this John Andreason is voted out of office next time he's up. What an arrogant attitude he has. He doesn't think the people should have chance to take action that would at least protect the state from its own Courts, and stop the legislature from slipping in some civil unions bill beneath the radar. That is the type of attitude I expect from Democrats, who are desperate to stop measure like this from ever reaching the people because they know they'll lose.

And to say that he doesn't think that it should be the primary issue; well it doesn't have to be. Just pass this bill and send the matter to the people, then the legislature can move on to other things. The people will make a decision one way or the other, but the legislature's part will be over. What a crock of s***!

And the part about some lawmakers wanting to leave the door open to civil unions or domestic partnerships should not be mistaken for anything other than a hope on their part that the state's courts will impose them, or that they can slip it in w/o much attention at some future time. And again, who are they to say? Let the people decide if they want to be consistent and recognize only real, traditional marriage, and not be assuaged by semantics by accepting some euphemistic substitute. If they don't, then they can vote against this measure.

But they won't, and that's the problem these 6 'Republicans' and 6 Democrats have with it. If the battleground states of Ohio and Michigan vote overwhelmingly to ban gay marriage and civil unions -- which they did last year -- then its a safe bet that Idahoans will overwhelmingly approve of this proposed measure.

I just can't believe this type of arrogance from Republicans may very well prevent the people of one of the most conservative states in the union from having their say on this key front in the culture war.

[FreeRep]

Hey, I think is going to pass in Kansas, the Kansas House tentatively approved the proposal (89-28 vote) today, yes.

Should the Kansas Constitution be amended to define marriage and civil unions as between one man and one woman only? Poll ends Friday.

http://www.hdnews.net/

[muawiyah]

In Idaho it's gotta' be the "ONE" part in the amendment.

Church of the First Born up there indulges in polygamy, as do many others. And those motorcycle gangs?! What form of marriage do you call that.

[Aetius]

I'm just looking at the big picture to predict how this would turn out if, heaven forbid apparently, the people get to decide. Bush carried those Idaho by 41 and 38 points in 2000 and 2004, respectively.

If bascially identical Amendments passed easily in Ohio and Michigan this year, (along with several others) then I think the people of Idaho would vote yes by even greater margins.

[Meldrim]

Sounds as though it is time for a RINO hunt.

[Betaille]

Anderson needs to be targeted for a primary challenge for this foolishness. Anybody in Idaho please give his office a call.

[EdReform]

Ping

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Yeah well believe it. That's the same laundry list of excuses they use in every state. We are all too busy with other important matters.... They're all phony arguments intend to delay and distract. Since when is less protection more protection? What could possibly be more important than the health of the family to your state? Laws are being overturned by judges, that's why you need an amendment. Civil unions ARE marriage by another name. Same thing. Yada yada yada. The gay activists take the same bag of arguments to each and every state. They re-evaluate, recycle and rework their arguments based on what worked and what didn't. You sound like you are getting the Kansas version. Oh, but you are missing the "It might cause a lawsuit in federal court, just what you say you want to avoid....look at Nebraska..." argument.

Keep fighting and don't give up. They won't.

[muawiyah]

BTW, Idaho's population is far more diverse than folks usually think. Just because they all look alike doesn't mean they believe the same things. You get very much outside of Boise and its suburbs and there are some interesting groups wandering about.

Does anybody know where the geographical regions are of the Republicans causing the problem?

[Aetius]

Well I don't live in Idaho, but I was just sort of surprised that Republican legislators in one of the Reddest of Red states would join a Dem/Leftwing strategy of denying the people a chance to settle this matter permanently, or at least until the Supreme Court imposes gay marriage/civil unions nationwide. But until then, the only protection from state courts are state Amendments, and I just am befuddled that a measure that would probably pass with well over 65% of the people may be sunk by a few Republicans, joining Dems to gain the bare minimum needed to block the measure.

Its a damn shame, that 's all, that the will of the majority may be sunk by a guy putting up a completely lame and ridiculous reason about more important issues needing attention.

[Aetius]

That may be, but do you doubt that this proposed Amendment that bans both gay marriage and civil unions would easily pass if this diverse populace actually got a chance to vote on it?

If the Amendment could be placed on the ballot through signatures, as with some other states, then this would all be moot. Its a few arrogant Senators who are thumbing their noses at the public.

I could be wrong, but then again the only way to know would be if there is a vote on this Amendment.

[Veto!]

My cousin is a Supreme in Idaho. I hope he hasn't retired yet, as he'd stand firm on any decision brought to court. Gotta csll him.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

You are absolutely right and you articulate it very well.

[Aetius]

And another thing about this that bothers me so is how it might be misconstrued by the Left/Gay lobby and their mainstream media allies.

Just imagine the press releases declaring a victory for homosexuals in this deeply-red state. Imagine Katie Couric rhetorically asking if this rejection of a gay marriage ban in Red Idaho point to a shift in momentum and a changing of attitudes, etc etc etc

They will of course fail to mention that that people never got a chance to actually vote on the measure. They will present it as thought the measure were actually defeated in a popular vote.

It would be truly sickening.

[muawiyah]

I really don't know if it would pass in Idaho. Might be a good idea to try it and see what happens.

[Pride in the USA]

"Boise Republican Sen. John Andreason said the state's statute prohibiting gay marriage is plenty clear and there is no reason for lawmakers to put gay marriage to voters."

Isn't Boise the one liberal mecca in Idaho?

[BullDog108]

No, the only blue county is the county that Sun Valley is in. All other counties are red.

[Jeff Head]

Brad Little is under HEAVY pressure from those of us in his district to vote yes on this amendment. I personally believe it is sad and endemic of a slide away from our Republican form of government when such a basic, entrinsic, self-evident fact has to be outlined specifically in the Constitution itself.

But sadly, such days are upon us and the statement on this intrinsic issue must be made.

[Lancey Howard]

Idaho???
You don't usually think of Idaho as having a lot of big, concentrated Democrat parasite nests (cities).

[Jeff Head]

Here is my own correspondence to Senator Little...

Brad,

I am writing as one of your constituents to strongly encourage you to vote yes, for the Marriage Maendment.

I personally believe it is sad and endemic of a slide away from our Republican form of government when such a basic, entrinsic, self-evident fact has to be outlined specifically in the Constitution itself.

But sadly, such days are upon us and the statement on this intrinsic issue must be made. The forces that would change the definition of this foundational social, religious and moral institution, sacntioned by God in Heaven, will ultimately find a way (as they have proven in other states) to challenge the constitutionality of our current legislative act. By amending the constitution, we will address the sad reality of this, and make a statement regarding the entrinsic and self-evident nature of marriage.

I trust you will take these issues and thinkng into consideration when you vote, and take a principled stand on this issue from this perspective.

It was once said that all that is required for the ultimate victory of evil is for a few good men to do nothing. In my opinion, it is time, on this issue, for you few to do stand and do something.

Sincerely,

Jeff Head
Emmett, ID