Marriage Equality!

Believe it or not, marriage equality is still and issues in many Republican states even after all these years. Some states just ignore the issues and leave their unconstitutional laws on the books and just not enforce the laws while other actively disregard the Supreme Court ruling.

Tax bill has a lesson: Idaho must remove bigoted marriage clause from constitution
Idaho Statesman
By Bryan Clark
February 6, 2022


Last week, a bill that conforms Idaho’s tax law to federal law — a simple measure meant to make state income taxes easy to file — ran into opposition on the House floor.

The issue was not about the level of the standard deduction or some other provision that would impact taxpayers. The issue was that federal law extends the same tax benefits to all married couples whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex.

The issue was bigotry.

Some lawmakers — most but not all on the far right — wanted to take the opportunity to remind gay couples that even if they are now legally protected in Idaho, they are not welcome.

“It’s our job to define morality in this state,” declared Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard — ignorantly.

The Republicans just thumb their noses at the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court.

Since Obergefell v. Hodges, it has been recognized that the Equal Protection Clause requires that if legal marriages are offered to different-sex couples, they must also be offered to same-sex couples. But Rep. Ron Nate, R-Rexburg, advocated the state acting to nullify the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and to enforce discrimination against gay couples through the tax code.

Rep. Greg Chaney, R-Caldwell, rightly pointed out the obvious practical problem. Nate might think the state can overrule the U.S. Supreme Court, but the courts universally disagree. Someone will sue. The Republican-dominated Legislature would lose in federal court — its favorite pastime. Taxpayers would foot the bill.

If you do you your own state taxes you can chose to ignore the state law and file jointly but suppose you have your taxes done by a professional could they legally ignore the law? And if you do follow state law how does that affect your federal taxes?

Chaney is absolutely right, and it’s good for every Idaho taxpayer that his more rational viewpoint won the day — the bill Nate opposed passed 46-22.

But there is a more obvious and more fundamental problem involved. The Idaho Constitution is marred by a terrible injustice — Article III, Section 28, which reads: “A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”

Looking beyond taxes, how does that affect the children of a LGBTQ+ couple could they legally adopt a child in Idaho? How do they register a child in school? This opens up a whole can of worms!

---

While researching the article I came across another article that the Idaho legislature that they are finally tackling on racism…

Hundreds of Boise-area homes have racist covenants. 2 efforts aim to ease their sting
Idaho Statesman
By Paul Schwedelson
February 6, 2022


Ed Labenski prepared to buy what he called a dream home with his wife, Cynthia, in 2018. His daughter was 3 years old. It was one of the biggest decisions of Labenski’s life. After their offer on the Warm Springs Mesa home in Southeast Boise was accepted, Labenski was thrilled.

Then he started reading through the entire property record, which he didn’t previously have access to, and came across a troubling line in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions document: “No part of the real property, or any building site or structure, shall at any time be sold, conveyed, rented or leased, in whole or in part, to any person or persons not of the white or caucasian race. …”

Labenski was appalled and confused. He rushed downstairs in the home he was renting and told his wife. They questioned whether they still wanted to buy the home. They found out on their own that the clause was unenforceable. They still bought the house. But Labenski was committed to coming up with answers so others don’t go through something similar.

“That language in that property record was clear and made an impact on us,” Labenski said by phone. “It was something you really can’t unread.”

Do you believe that legislators across the country has accidentally overlook these covenants? Or did they just ignore them?

Restricting someone from buying a house based on race has been illegal for decades. In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Shelley v. Kraemer that racially restrictive real estate covenants cannot be enforced. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 outlawed housing discrimination based on race or color.

Still, housing covenants across the country went unchanged, remaining as a remnant of past racism and without anything clarifying that those clauses are void.

[…]

“Even though they’re outlawed today, they have entrenched racial disparities,” Cunningham said. “They have helped make racial disparities systemic to this day.”

During the Great Depression, to spur homeownership and stabilize the economy, the federal government offered incentives for people to buy homes. But those incentives weren’t available in and near neighborhoods with people of color. This practice of redlining, Cunningham said, was overtly racist.

Cunningham said racial covenants worked hand in hand with the government’s redlining approach.

Ops… we can’t talk about “Redlining” that’s Critical Race Theory! We can’t talk about historic racism that might make some people uncomfortable and teach their children that mommy and daddy were racists.

“It may not be our responsibility for what has happened in the past, (but) it is our responsibility to address it in the future and to ensure it never happens again,” Wintrow said. “We know when we understand our history, we have a better chance of not repeating it.”