June 25, 2010 in Idaho

Idaho GOP move to define marriage to exclude transgenders

Measure: Bond is between ‘naturally born’ man and woman

Associated Press

Tags:Donna Montgomerygay marriageGuy MonganIdaho GOPIdaho militiaIdaho RepublicansJeff Siddowaymarijuanamedical marijuananaturally bornRalph LillingTom Trailtraditional familytransgenders

Idaho GOP panel supports repeal of 17th amendment

Republicans from across Idaho took aim at the 17th amendment during their state convention, calling for repeal of the measure.

A GOP committee narrowly passed a measure Friday to include language in the state party’s platform that seeks to nullify the amendment created a century ago to shift election of U.S. senators from state legislatures to voters.

Supporters of the measure say making senators accountable to legislators instead of voters will restore the constitution’s checks and balances.

Sen. Jeff Siddoway, a Terreton Republican, joined more than a dozen other delegates in voting against the proposal, saying it takes voters out of the equation.

Siddoway told delegates: “You’re giving up your right to vote for people who are representing you in Washington, D.C.”

Delegates leery of medical marijuana push

Idaho Republican convention delegates snuffed out a resolution supporting legalization of medical marijuana.

Foes at the Idaho state GOP convention in Idaho Falls said Friday that encouraging such a plan would put the Republican Party at the forefront of a radical agenda and expose the party to accusations it’s a radical organization.

Rep. Tom Trail, a Republican from Moscow, is trying to get Idaho in line with states like Colorado and California that are easing restrictions on marijuana as long as it’s used medically to treat chronic pain or debilitating diseases.

But among traditional Idaho Republicans, there is still deep concern that relaxing restrictions would encourage illegal drug use.

Failure of the resolution is a bad sign for Trail’s efforts in the 2011 Legislature.

GOP panel says Idaho needs to form state militia

Could Idaho get an all-volunteer state militia that’s out from under any federal control?

A Butte County delegate to the state Republican Party convention in Idaho Falls on Friday got his compatriots on a committee to go along with the plan — at least on paper.

The idea must still win full convention approval Saturday.

Butte County delegate Guy Mongan says such a force could assist in the event of natural disasters and wouldn’t be subject to a military call-up, such like the Idaho National Guard.

Ada County delegate Phil Hardy says he appreciates the notion that Idaho could be left unprotected if many of its citizen soldiers are dispatched to defend the nation. But Hardy contends the time isn’t ripe for the plan.

The measure cleared the committee on a 21-18 vote.

ADVERTISEMENT Advertise Here

18 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

Loudin on June 25 at 1:23 p.m.
Trans-gender fears, mandating a hillbilly militia, reefer madness: Would it surprise anyone if the next piece of Idaho legislation involved banning shoes, dentists or post 8th-grade education?
Again, Idaho = Albania. Way to go, “patriots.”
PS: Channeling the thoughts of the Founding Fathers is fine; actually living like the Founding Fathers…not so much.
Scoutster on June 25 at 1:39 p.m.
How about hermaphrodites? Do we need legislation about THEM, too?
shebop on June 25 at 1:47 p.m.
Maybe someone should explain to them that–-a male to female transgender person looks like a woman. And there is a high possibility the person will wish to marry another woman. They will look like a same sex couple.
A female to male transgender person will look and sound like any other male. Chances are that person will wish to marry a female. They will look like a heterosexual couple.
But if the female to male transgender person chooses to marry another person whom is male, they will look like a same sex couple.
Now, I understand this concept is well over the heads of the Idaho GOP members, but at least it fits with their prejudice.
Maybe they should take a tad more time and deal with their own relationships. With a 58% divorce rate, they are probably experiencing a high level of low esteem.
Not every person is the same. Thank God.
TOOBAD2 on June 25 at 2:45 p.m.
THANK GOD THE PEOPLE IN IDAHO HAVE COMMON SENSE. HOLD THE FORT DOWN AND WE WILL BE BACK UP TO BONNER COUNTRY. PRAY FOR US . WE ARE STUCK IN CALIF. UNTIL MY WIFE RETIRES. SHOULD BE JUST A FEW MORE YEARS. I JUST HOPE THEY DON’T SHUT THE BORDERS DOWN BEFORE WE GET UP THERE.
Gato on June 25 at 2:58 p.m.
If protecting the traditional family unit is so important, why not make divorce illegal?
oneanddone on June 25 at 4:45 p.m.
The only reason for marriage is to stabilize a home for children. Any tax breaks, legalities, or benefits should be aimed at enabling a decent childhood, including a good education. Unless and until there are children there’s no need for any legal connection - gay, straight, or something else. It all seems pointless anyway since so many unmarried couples live together and have children. It’s also true that if you live together long enough you’re considered married for monetary purposes anyway.
oneanddone on June 25 at 4:50 p.m.
A bigger “WHAT?” in this article is about the Idaho republicans wanting to reverse the 17th amendment. I can’t believe these total morons think they can support something that ridiculous without immense backlash. Geez, what a state.
Pat O'Leary on June 25 at 5:23 p.m.
In Idaho, if a man divorces his wife, is she still his sister?
spokanecougar on June 25 at 6:06 p.m.
Can we give Idaho to Canada? Of course they probably don’t even want that hillbilly redneck state either.
Pretty anyone not white, male (at birth) and republican you are NOT welcome in the State of Idaho.
espinada on June 25 at 9:32 p.m.
Let’s see, thousands of people in Idaho are unemployed, the representatives of this state vote against extending benefits, and the Xenophobes that have been elected waste their time coming up with laws that discriminate and support paranoia in the state…
I’m starting to think that all the elected “officials” in Idaho do is smoke crack behind those closed doors.
“Freedom” never smelled so bad.
Gina9223 on June 26 at 7:01 a.m.
I’m Intersexed (‘naturally born’ that way) and Transgendered (yeah, the doctor actually made a mistake one time. I know doctors are infallible right?). Currently I DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY! The Idaho GOP wants to take away my rights? How are they going to prove people’s gender when applying for a marriage license? For that matter what about current marriages? Will people have to line up and play ‘you show me yours and I’ll show you mine’ to prove they have a legal marriage???
And forming a ‘State Militia’ that’s not controlled by the ‘gubment’… will they be wearing some tasteful brown shirts? Will they be the ones storming around looking at people’s private parts? Will they do it at gun point?
Let’s face it, me being different is really dangerous to ‘you’. I could be contagious! Maybe the Idaho GOP would like to send me to a nice camp out in the woods for my own safety?
Isn’t this the party of The Great Emancipator? A party that used to stand for protecting everyone’s Rights? A party that embraced Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
oopster on June 26 at 8:03 a.m.
Wanting to protect what they see as “traditional marriage” is all good and well for those people that want “traditional marriage”, but it’s like banning all political parties so that you can only vote for one or not at all, then claiming a landslide victory.
If they want to protect marriage as they see it, then the best idea for them would to set a good example, right now all they’re doing is trying to prevents other who disagree with them from doing so.
MarleneB on June 26 at 12:27 p.m.
The imbiciles in the Idaho GOP evidently never took human biology in school, or failed it, because there’s NO such thing as “naturally born” males or females!
The fact intersex people exist puts a big ol’ dose of reality in their fantasies!
In addition, if these twits subscribe to the “biology is destiny” fallacy, then I, a genetic male, can go through full transition to female, and thanks to my home state of Ohio denying me the ability to change the gender marker on my birth certificate, will be able to *legally* marry a natal female, and there’s *nothing* the state of Idaho can do!
spokanada on June 26 at 1:54 p.m.
Okay, to protect the family lets require parents to :
a) pass a parenting course and get a license to have a baby
b) be a heterosexual couple
c) both be of the same race
d) not be allowed to get divorced
e) be married
f) be Christian
g) not be a midget
h) not have any sort of handicaps in their family history so kids wont be made fun of at school
Did I forget anything Idaho???
Emilie on June 26 at 5:15 p.m.
This is such a crock of elephant puckey! Typical Eye-da-hoe Rethuglican terrorism. Idaho is one of the four states in the US that refuses to modify the gender marker on Idaho birth certificates for post-operative transsexual MtF and FtM individuals. Being a MtF Trans-woman who was a “naturally born” man, I am a conundrum to the “Party of Haters” because of how I identify and whom I’m sexually attracted to. Their attempts to exclude someone like me from enjoying the institution of marriage and all that it has to offer falls pitifully short because I identify as Lesbian. Therefore, under Idaho Statutory prohibitions regarding birth certificate gender marker revisions, the current Idaho Constitutional limits on marriage between one man and one woman, and the proposed Rethuglican platform provision to define marriage as a bond between a “naturally born” man and woman, I can therefore legally enter into a marriage with a woman even though I identify as a woman. Go figure. The proposed Idaho Rethuglican platform is just one more in a long line of their draconian attempts to morally mandate Idaho’s trans-identified citizens out of existence.
Prejudices_R_Us on June 27 at 1:38 a.m.
If the Idaho GOP did succeed in getting their motion on marriage passed, it would backfire on them big time.
Transgender people are “naturally born” in about the same proportion as cisgender (non trans) people, so it would not prevent trans people from having rights as the GOP wants.
On the other hand, people born by Cesarian Section are not “naturally born” so the Idaho GOP would be taking away THEIR right to marry! I wonder how many in the Idaho GOP were born by C Section?
Perhaps those members would welcome a visit by the proposed Schutzstaffel to tell them they were no longer entitled to be treated as human beings.
cromwell on June 27 at 10:50 p.m.
This is getting too weird. Let’s just leave marriage as between a man and a woman(that is..naturally born) and call it good. If you’re gay, how’s about a civil union or even a transgender couple who doesn’t know which gender they’re going to embrace depending on how the stars align. They can get a civil union too.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on July 02 at 12:08 p.m.
One of the loveliest trans gender women I know who is a MtF now age 65 served in VIet Nam as a Marine as an MOS 300…. two tours of duty… was a sniper and decorated.. while still a male.
She says that when the rest of us boys were wanting to date/spend time with Annette on Mickey Mouse Club in the fifties she wanted to BE Annette… She has been a model citizen and a real asset to our community ALL of her life no matter what her chosen Gender is. Semper Fi…. Once a Marine always a Marine… John