Bryan Fischer
Idaho's marriage amendment under assault
By Bryan Fischer
Jim Fisher of The Lewiston Morning Tribune took me to task recently for challenging the decision by the Moscow, Idaho city council in December to grant insurance benefits to domestic partners of city employees.
Fisher candidly admits in the first line of his column that whether Moscow can do this "might be a good legal question," and then bluntly says, "Bryan Fischer is hardly the one to answer it."
Oddly, and perhaps for the first time, I find myself in agreement with Fisher. I am not in fact the one to answer this question.
The ones who are in a position to answer this question, however, are the Idaho legislature and the people of the state of Idaho, and unfortunately for Fisher's argument, they have already answered this question by collaborating together in 2006 to pass Idaho's marriage amendment.
That amendment unambiguously states that a man-woman marriage "is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."
But the policy presented to the city council for adoption in December states that it is intended to apply to unmarried employees who "have entered into a relationship which is the functional equivalent of marriage."
So Moscow has plainly violated constitutional parameters by treating "domestic partners" as the legal equivalent of married couples. Its new policy regards such "domestic partnerships" as "valid," in contravention to state policy, and such partnerships are "recognized" by the city for the purpose of employee benefits, again flatly contrary to the will of both the legislature and the people.
In order to leave no doubt, the legislature attached a "Statement of Purpose" to the marriage amendment legislation (HJR2) which reads, in part, "The language is further intended to prohibit the State of Idaho, or any of its political subdivisions, from granting any or all of the legal benefits of marriage to civil unions, domestic partnerships, or any other relationship that attempts to approximate marriage."
This same language appeared on the Secretary of State's website in the run-up to the vote in November.
It hardly takes a law degree to conclude that Moscow is in violation of the state constitution; all that's required is the ability to read.
As even Fisher points out, attorneys at the University of Idaho — hardly a right-wing think tank — concluded that the amendment prohibits the school from offering benefits to domestic partners. (Note: private companies, who are not political subdivisions of the state, can do whatever they want.)
Fisher accuses me and the other "ayatollahs of Boise" of wanting to "force all Idahoans to live the way they do." This is a preposterous charge, since Idahoans themselves, by a 63%-37% margin, voted for marriage protection to be enshrined in our state constitution. There are no reports that any Idahoan had a gun put to his head and was coerced into voting for this amendment against his will.
And this was after the amendment was put on the ballot after passing both houses of the state legislature with more than 75% of lawmakers in favor.
So rather than this amendment being something forced on Idahoans, as Fisher charges, this is something that Idahoans and their elected representatives have wisely chosen for themselves. Note to the Tribune: this is how we establish public policy in a constitutional republic.
The debate here is not about marriage — that debate was held in 2006, and the debate was settled at the ballot box.
Idahoans overwhelmingly decided that they wanted to protect marriage in Idaho from meddlesome, activist judges, and believed, in agreement with over 10,000 social research studies, that the institution of marriage is fundamental to society and that children do best when raised in a two-parent household with opposite-sex parents who are married to each other.
No, this debate is about whether the city of Moscow will be allowed to flagrantly disregard the supreme expression of state law and get away with it. The mere fact that city council members may not like this part of the Idaho constitution is no excuse to ignore it.
The constitution is plain on this subject, and the city of Moscow has a moral, legal and ethical obligation to follow it. And it doesn't take a law degree to figure that out, either.
© Bryan Fischer
Jim Fisher of The Lewiston Morning Tribune took me to task recently for challenging the decision by the Moscow, Idaho city council in December to grant insurance benefits to domestic partners of city employees.
Fisher candidly admits in the first line of his column that whether Moscow can do this "might be a good legal question," and then bluntly says, "Bryan Fischer is hardly the one to answer it."
Oddly, and perhaps for the first time, I find myself in agreement with Fisher. I am not in fact the one to answer this question.
The ones who are in a position to answer this question, however, are the Idaho legislature and the people of the state of Idaho, and unfortunately for Fisher's argument, they have already answered this question by collaborating together in 2006 to pass Idaho's marriage amendment.
That amendment unambiguously states that a man-woman marriage "is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."
But the policy presented to the city council for adoption in December states that it is intended to apply to unmarried employees who "have entered into a relationship which is the functional equivalent of marriage."
So Moscow has plainly violated constitutional parameters by treating "domestic partners" as the legal equivalent of married couples. Its new policy regards such "domestic partnerships" as "valid," in contravention to state policy, and such partnerships are "recognized" by the city for the purpose of employee benefits, again flatly contrary to the will of both the legislature and the people.
In order to leave no doubt, the legislature attached a "Statement of Purpose" to the marriage amendment legislation (HJR2) which reads, in part, "The language is further intended to prohibit the State of Idaho, or any of its political subdivisions, from granting any or all of the legal benefits of marriage to civil unions, domestic partnerships, or any other relationship that attempts to approximate marriage."
This same language appeared on the Secretary of State's website in the run-up to the vote in November.
It hardly takes a law degree to conclude that Moscow is in violation of the state constitution; all that's required is the ability to read.
As even Fisher points out, attorneys at the University of Idaho — hardly a right-wing think tank — concluded that the amendment prohibits the school from offering benefits to domestic partners. (Note: private companies, who are not political subdivisions of the state, can do whatever they want.)
Fisher accuses me and the other "ayatollahs of Boise" of wanting to "force all Idahoans to live the way they do." This is a preposterous charge, since Idahoans themselves, by a 63%-37% margin, voted for marriage protection to be enshrined in our state constitution. There are no reports that any Idahoan had a gun put to his head and was coerced into voting for this amendment against his will.
And this was after the amendment was put on the ballot after passing both houses of the state legislature with more than 75% of lawmakers in favor.
So rather than this amendment being something forced on Idahoans, as Fisher charges, this is something that Idahoans and their elected representatives have wisely chosen for themselves. Note to the Tribune: this is how we establish public policy in a constitutional republic.
The debate here is not about marriage — that debate was held in 2006, and the debate was settled at the ballot box.
Idahoans overwhelmingly decided that they wanted to protect marriage in Idaho from meddlesome, activist judges, and believed, in agreement with over 10,000 social research studies, that the institution of marriage is fundamental to society and that children do best when raised in a two-parent household with opposite-sex parents who are married to each other.
No, this debate is about whether the city of Moscow will be allowed to flagrantly disregard the supreme expression of state law and get away with it. The mere fact that city council members may not like this part of the Idaho constitution is no excuse to ignore it.
The constitution is plain on this subject, and the city of Moscow has a moral, legal and ethical obligation to follow it. And it doesn't take a law degree to figure that out, either.
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
