Marriage takes Capitol’s center stage

BOISE – The issue of marriage dominated the action at the Statehouse on Friday, beginning with a Senate committee that voted to consider a proposed constitutional amendment to keep marriage between one man and one woman.

The State Affairs Committee voted 6-2 Friday morning to allow a hearing on the bill sponsored by Republican Sens. Gerry Sweet, of Meridian, and Curt McKenzie, of Nampa.

The hearing room at the Statehouse was packed with people on both sides of the issue, even though no testimony is allowed at initial hearings.

The bill, co-sponsored by 15 of the 35 members of the full Senate, was introduced by McKenzie, who said activist judges around the nation are forcing policy decisions on others.

“In our democratic republic, fundamental policy should be set by the people, not through the courts,” McKenzie told the panel in his presentation.

Sen. Brad Little, R-Emmett, who said he opposes the bill, voted to allow a hearing on it anyway in deference to his fellow senators.

“I wanted to let them print the bill. That doesn’t mean I’m going to vote for it,” Little said.

The one-page document would add a new section to Article III of the Idaho Constitution, declaring that:

“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.”

As an amendment to the constitution, the proposal before the Idaho Senate would need to pass by two-thirds of each body to move forward. If passed by the super-majority, it would then be placed on the General Election ballot in 2006 (the governor is not required to approve it). If the amendment was accepted by simple majority, it would become part of the Idaho Constitution.

The next step is a full committee hearing, scheduled for Friday. After the morning bill introduction, many who opposed the amendment started questioning whether the second sentence of the statement would unintentionally affect heterosexual couples who considered themselves married under the state’s common-law provision.

“That’s a good legal question,” conceded Sen. Denton Darrington, R-Declo, who voted to consider the bill in the committee.

The Idaho Legislature outlawed future common-law marriages in 1996, but specifically set aside those relationships between a man and a woman formed before Jan. 1, 1996.

Because the legislation is an amendment to the constitution, which always supersedes state law, some wonder whether those common-law marriages formed before 1996 might be nullified.

“I think it does,” said Sen. Clint Stennett, D-Ketchum, who voted against considering the legislation in the committee hearing. “I think it could also have an effect on elderly people who choose to live together to share resources. It doesn’t sound like ‘family values’ to me.”

But one of the co-sponsors of the bill, Tim Corder, R-Mountain Home, said it doesn’t matter because common-law marriages have never been enforced.

“If the phrase (“common-law”) goes away, then it’s insignificant,” Corder said.

By the afternoon, the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho had swung into action, holding a news conference with Mary Li and Becky Kennedy, a lesbian couple with a 20-month-old girl. Li and Kennedy were the first same-sex couple to wed under Oregon law.

ACLU Executive Director Jack Van Valkenburgh said he wanted to present the family to “Show the faces of a nice, same-sex couple with a baby daughter.”

During the conference, Li and Kennedy took turns holding their daughter, Ava.

Li said her parents – who were of mixed race, Asian and white – were married when many states still had laws against interracial marriage.

“That was the civil rights issue of their generation. This is the civil rights issue of our generation,” Li said.

Li said that if conservatives who support the amendment in Idaho would get to know gay and lesbian couples more personally, some of their fears would melt away.

“They would see that we want the same things for our family and our children. We are pro-family and I don’t give up that term to the religious right,” she said.