Idaho Declares War On Obergefell

What, the headline didn't grab your attention.

Hello, friends,

Before we begin, a hat-tip to Allison Chapman on Bluesky. Her post on the topic is how I found this information out. I’m sure others reported it, but she’s where I first heard it, so she’s who I’m crediting. Love you all.

Also, before we begin: This is what I’d consider a half-rant, half-article wherein I am going at speed and not necessarily linking to every single thing. I invite you to confirm my claims at your leisure, but we’re moving at a clip, here, and this won’t necessarily have much I haven’t talked about before. So if there’s a claim you doubt? Go for it, look it up. Comment with where I’m wrong. If you’re right, I’ll revise and credit you.

I say that because my anger is cold, and I hate this feeling, but I also know I need to vent this toxin out, and I have had a long day, already.

Let’s go.

…But my cat is now hugging me, first. She knows. I know.

So What The Hell Is Going On With Obergefell?

We’ve talked about Obergefell being a prime Fascist target before.

A super-brief recap of what it is? Sure! It’s a 2015 Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling making clear that “same-sex” or “gay” marriage - marriage equality, we call it - is guaranteed by the Constitution. Remember, this wasn’t a thing when most of us were kids - I mean, unless you were born after 2015, in which case you’re still a kid, I hope this doesn’t upset you, but you shouldn’t be reading this quite yet.

And, honestly, hopefully by the time you’re old enough to be reading political rags on the internet, this isn’t a problem anymore.

For anyone young enough to not quite know how it was in the old days, I’m not going to drag you through the history of it all, but it’s here. The key thing to know is that until the 2000’s, marriage equality was not a thing.

States just banned Gay/Lesbian people from marrying others of the same gender.

The long-and-short of the actual ‘news’ component of this, though, is just like Allison’s post said: Idaho is taking the first steps towards getting the Supreme Court to essentially re-open the case. This is, basically, a bill in the Idaho House of Representatives that’ll ask SCOTUS to take a second look at the Obergefell ruling.

There are - maybe, kinda-sorta? - steps that would have to happen, but those steps are not hard to make happen.

There’s also a glowing-red-hot warning sign already openly out there that this isn’t just a random state’s hateful hopes, and is instead a real thing the Supreme Court would do: One of the Justices has already asked for this challenge.

FUCK Clarence Thomas.

Back when SCOTUS released the Dobbs decision - you know, the one stripping the right to reproductive healthcare away from half the population? The one where Roevember was supposedly coming? The one American voters clearly fucking forgot about when they voted in November?

Yes - I am still pissed so many people sold the women in their lives out. Twice; 2016, and 2024.

Supreme Court Sellout Justice Clarence Thomas released his own, extra-special concurring opinion where, as per Politico, he said SCOTUS should be reconsidering Obergefell, as well as other rulings that granted the right to contraception.

So it’s clear Idaho has a good reason to feel like it can win. It knows it has at least one of the Justices salivating.

…As this next writing sprint gears up, my cat is draping her neck over my right arm. She always knows.

Now, the “Don’t panic it will be fine” sentiment is that this is just the first step. I hope nobody is so naive as to think Idaho’s Senate is going to charge in and stop the lower chamber from acting. Or that their Governor will turn up and say, “Nah, we don’t need to do this.”

Those things don’t sit well with me when the state has an extremely harsh abortion law. They’re nuts. You should know that sort of thing by now.

But there are some technicalities that might need to be fulfilled - only, they probably will be easily completed.

Technicalities Like What?

Well, typically, in order for a lawsuit to take place, someone has to sue the government. That means someone has to claim their wellbeing is harmed in a way that the government can’t do. The problem is that this is ridiculously easy to fill, and in fact requires absolutely no law change whatsoever.

Consider the possibility that the Supreme Court has already attacked Queer people over a lie. Democracy Now is great.

But all that really has to happen is for some bigotry-laden Idaho bureaucrat to get in the way of a legal paperwork for a same-sex couple. Most famous is Kim Davis. The bureaucrat sues to claim that the laws compelling them to sign it are forcing them to violate their “Sincerely held” beliefs. Then, they just need to use that as a vehicle to get to the Supreme Court and argue that Obergefell suppresses their First Amendment rights.

But, maybe that’s too nakedly bullshit for SCOTUS to buy into. It IS a bullshitty situation, but then again that’s the mode SCOTUS operates in, right?

More likely, all that has to happen is that the bureaucrat just says no. The victims of the bigotry would then have to sue to have their right to marry enforced. The bureaucrat appeals through friendly courts until they get to the US Supreme Court.

Nah, you’re right, that’s bullshit, too. Though it does sorta work if you remember that states can just refuse to enforce their own laws and make our bureaucrat dipshit sign off on it.

But most-likely-of-all is the same approach that Christo-Fascist states took with regards to Roe: Pass laws that fly in the face of the unfavorable SCOTUS decision and dare someone to sue.

This is the aforementioned hypothetical bureaucrat going in with the government instead of against it. This time, instead of protesting that his religious rights are offended, they just refuse to grant the license. The victim couple is victimized. They have no choice but to sue.

Then, the state just appeals until it gets to SCOTUS, which has already made clear it wants it.

So What Can We Do?

I don’t know.

If you live in Idaho - or any state openly hostile to Queer peoples’ right to marry - then you can lean on your elected representatives to vote against this type of bill. Will it work?

I mean, is it really, truly likely that you’re represented by someone who you didn’t go out and vote for due to differing ideals, but will listen to you on this issue? And you’re reading this, and have read this far, thus meaning you’re probably not a right-winger?

It’s unlikely. Either a liberal-ish candidate (or better! Better exists!) won, or they didn’t.

Still: That doesn’t mean, ‘don’t try’ - it just means, ‘temper expectations, act accordingly.’

Failing that, I feel like we are increasingly short on solutions regarding SCOTUS. The best I can say is: Make them know your power.

I don’t know how. I don’t particularly care how. Make them know their vote on overturning Obergefell would have consequences. And if they vote that way, anyway, make them know your wrath for it.

I suppose the only way I’d be in compliance with that edict is if, somehow, this article turns out to be a big hit and winds up getting a lot of people on the sidelines activated. I don’t know. That’d be a neat power to have. Maybe you could share this article if you…I won’t say “enjoyed it,” but I will say “found it useful.”

In Other, More Immediate News

Climate-change style fires are currently scorching LA. PLEASE check in on your California people, be safe about breathing in pollutant-laden air, and do all you can to minimize the climate crisis.

Including, most of all, making them know your power.

Jesse Pohlman is an author from Long Island, New York, who is sick of having to argue things like 'his existence.' Also check out his website for Queer-affirming literature written by a Queer person.