Idaho HJR 2, Definition of Marriage Amendment (2006)

Idaho HJR 2
Election date November 7, 2006
Topic Family-related policy and LGBTQ issues
Status Approved
Type Legislatively referred constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

Idaho HJR 2 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in Idaho on November 7, 2006. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported amending the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and that it will be the only valid domestic union recognized in the state.

A "no" vote opposed amending the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and that it will be the only valid domestic union recognized in the state.

Election results

Idaho HJR 2
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		282,386	63.35%
No		163,384	36.65%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What was this amendment designed to do?

This amendment was designed to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and that this will be the only valid domestic union recognized in the state.

Aftermath

U.S. District Court

Nearly eight years after Idaho voters passed House Joint Resolution 2, the measure was struck down on May 13, 2014 as a result of a lawsuit filed by four same-sex couple last November. U.S. District Magistrate Candy Dale blocked enforcement of the ban on same-sex marriage, calling it unconstitutional. As a result of the decision, the state was required to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses beginning at 9 am on May 16, 2014.

In her opinion, Dale stated:

“

The defendants offered no evidence that same-sex marriage would adversely affect opposite-sex marriages or the well-being of children. Without proof, the defendants' justifications echo the unsubstantiated fears that could not prop up the anti-miscegenation laws and rigid gender roles of days past.

”

In anticipation of a ruling overturning the ban, Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter's attorney filed a plea on Monday for an order to postpone the decision to allow an appeal to go ahead. A spokesman for the attorney general's office also stated that the attorney general intends to file a motion for a stay on May 14, 2014.

Ninth Circuit Court

On October 7, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the same-sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada in a unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel. In its decision, the court said:

“

Idaho and Nevada's marriage laws, by preventing same-sex couples from marrying and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages celebrated elsewhere, impose profound legal, financial, social and psychic harms on numerous citizens of those states...These harms are not inflicted on opposite-sex couples.

”

While the decision in Idaho's case could be appealed, it is an unlikely course of action following the Supreme Court's decision to not hear appeals cases from other states on same-sex marriages on October 6, 2014. The decision could potentially strike down bans in Alaska, Arizona and Montana as well.

Following the ruling, Idaho filed an emergency request for an immediate stay. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy temporarily blocked the circuit court's ruling on October 8, 2014. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the stay was set to dissolve at 9 a.m. on October 15, 2014. Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden stated that his office and state do not oppose lifting the stay, although Governor Butch Otter maintained his resistance.

U.S. Supreme Court

See also: Obergefell v. Hodges

On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution in the case Obergefell v. Hodges. The ruling overturned bans on same-sex marriage.

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito each authored a dissent.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for HJR 2 was as follows:

“

"Shall Article III, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended by the addition of a new Section 28, to provide that a marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state?"

”

Meaning and Purpose

	Statement of Meaning and Purpose The proposed amendment would add a new Section 28 to Article III of the Constitution of the State of Idaho, stating that a marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in the state of Idaho.

Effect of Adoption

Effect of Adoption If adopted, the proposed amendment would add language to the Constitution of the State of Idaho to provide that a marriage is only between a man and a woman. The language prohibits recognition by the state of Idaho and its political subdivisions of civil unions, domestic partnerships, or any other relationship that attempts to approximate marriage. The language further prohibits the state and 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.

Support

Arguments

• Michael Duff, president of United Families Idaho: "Same-sex marriage is a stimulus to the abandonment of marriage as the primary manner for governing sex, procreation, and raising children in our society. Given the overwhelming body of data indicating the negative impact to society, not to mention the detrimental personal impacts same-sex relationships bring, marriage between a man and a woman should remain the standard in Idaho."

Official Arguments

• Idaho Legislative Services Office Voter Guide: 1. Same gender marriages are not currently allowed under Idaho statutes, and this amendment provides for the same prohibition at the state constitutional level to ensure that Idaho state courts do not allow or require the recognition of same gender marriages. 2. This amendment would prevent Idaho state courts from recognizing same gender marriages that are legally allowed in other states or other countries. 3. Because marriage is a public institution with special importance to society, the state of Idaho has a legitimate interest in establishing the marriage policy for its citizens. 4. This amendment does not prevent private industry from extending certain benefits to its employees nor does it limit a person's right to name medical and financial agents or to enter into contractual agreements. 5. This amendment does not deny any existing rights under Idaho law, but Idaho's current marriage laws could be weakened in the future without this amendment.

Opposition

Idaho Votes No led the campaign opposing the amendment.

Arguments

• Jim East, communications chair for Idaho Votes No: "Proponents of HJR 2, the proposed amendment to Idaho’s constitution, want you to think that it merely restates Idaho state law, defining marriage as between one man and one woman. But that is untrue. By moving beyond a marriage definition and additionally banning any other form of legally recognized relationship, the proposed amendment would affect thousands of gay and lesbian couples as well as unmarried heterosexual couples by prohibiting them from being able to petition their Legislature for even basic protections if those protections are deemed to be 'marriage-like.'"

Official Arguments

• Idaho Legislative Services Office Voter Guide: 1. This amendment is not needed since Idaho Code already limits the right to marry to one man and one woman and does not recognize out-of-state marriages that are in conflict with Idaho public policy. 2. This amendment uses the term "domestic legal union," which is not defined and will likely result in costly and lengthy litigation. 3. Because this amendment is broadly drafted, it could be construed to prohibit domestic partners of private-sector employees who receive health and other benefits from access to Idaho courts to enforce such benefits. 4. This amendment could in the future deny same gender couples in committed relationships the protections and benefits available to married couples, such as access to spousal Social Security benefits upon a partner's death, automatic "next of kin" emergency medical decisions and "family member" hospital visitation rights. 5. Just as the United States Constitution's Equal Protection Clause guarantees equal treatment under the law for all persons, Idaho's Constitution is designed to protect liberties and should not be amended to exclude certain people from legal protections.

Background

Related measures

See also: History of same-sex marriage ballot measures

Between 1998 and 2012, voters in 30 states approved ballot measures that defined marriage as between one male and one female or otherwise prohibited same-sex marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated bans on same-sex marriage in the case Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

• 1998: Alaska
• 2000: Nebraska
• 2002: Nevada
• 2004: Arkansas
• 2004: Georgia
• 2004: Kentucky
• 2004: Louisiana
• 2004: Michigan
• 2004: Mississippi
• 2004: Missouri
• 2004: Montana
• 2004: North Dakota
• 2004: Ohio
• 2004: Oklahoma
• 2004: Oregon
• 2004: Utah
• 2005: Kansas
• 2005: Texas
• 2006: Alabama
• 2006: Colorado
• 2006: Idaho
• 2006: South Carolina
• 2006: South Dakota
• 2006: Tennessee
• 2006: Virginia
• 2006: Wisconsin
• 2008: Arizona
• 2008: California
• 2008: Florida
• 2012: North Carolina

Path to the ballot

A two-thirds (66.67%) vote is required during one legislative session for the Idaho State Legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 47 votes in the Idaho House of Representatives and 24 votes in the Idaho State Senate, assuming no vacancies. Amendments do not require the governor's signature to be referred to the ballot.

The amendment, HJR 2, was introduced in the Idaho House of Representatives. The amendment passed the House by 53-17 on February 6, 2006. The Idaho State Senate passed the amendment by 26-9 on February 15, 2006.

See also

2006 Measures

• 2006 Measures
• LGBTQ issues on the ballot
• Family-related policy on the ballot
• 2006 legislative sessions

Idaho

• Idaho ballot measures
• Idaho ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Idaho Constitutional Amendment History
• Idaho 2006 Proposed Constitutional Amendments
• Follow the Money