States findings of the Legislature and calls upon the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges and restore the natural definition of marriage, a union of one man and one woman.
Summary
House Joint Memorial 1 is a nonbinding legislative memorial from the Idaho Legislature to the U.S. Supreme Court. It states that the Legislature rejects Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and urges the Court to reverse that ruling. The memorial also asks the Court to restore what it describes as the “natural definition of marriage” as the union of one man and one woman.
The memorial is framed as a statement of constitutional and historical principles rather than a change to Idaho statutory law. It argues that marriage regulation belongs to the states, that judicial decisions are not laws, and that Obergefell has harmed religious liberty and state sovereignty. The measure directs the House Chief Clerk to transmit the memorial to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Impact
HJM001 does not amend Idaho code, create new regulatory requirements, or alter marriage licensing procedures by itself. Its legal effect is limited to expressing the Legislature’s position and formally communicating that position to the U.S. Supreme Court. The practical impact is political and symbolic, but it signals support for returning marriage policy to state control and for a legal framework that would permit states to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have strong support among House members who voted on it, passing third reading 46-24. The text and caption show a clear ideological and policy preference against Obergefell and in favor of traditional marriage definitions. The available vote suggests a divided chamber, with a substantial minority opposed, indicating that the memorial is controversial even though it advanced.
Contention
The main point of contention is same-sex marriage and the continued validity of Obergefell v. Hodges. Supporters argue the decision is constitutionally flawed, exceeds judicial authority, and intrudes on state control over marriage; they also emphasize religious liberty and originalist constitutional interpretation. Opponents likely object to the memorial’s rejection of marriage equality and its call to overturn a settled Supreme Court precedent, viewing it as discriminatory and inconsistent with existing constitutional rights.