Brent Crane — Representative Brent Crane is addressed during consideration of the minutes, makes the motion to approve the minutes for Thursday, February 26th and Friday, February 27th, and is then identified in connection with RS 33605.
Brent Crane — Spoke in favor of the motion to send the memorial to the floor and argued the Court decision should be overturned due to alleged taint and failure to recuse.
Brent Crane — Continued arguing that the Court decision should be overturned and that states should be allowed to define marriage.
Brent Crane — Argued that complex social issues should be left to the states, while acknowledging possible risks in state-by-state variation.
Brent Crane — Concluded by supporting the motion and then the chair announced the vote and online testimony count.
Brent Crane — Presided over the roll call vote on the motion.
Brent Crane — Voted yes on the motion.
Brent Crane — Addressed as Chairman.
Brent Crane — Representative Brent Crane was recognized by the chair and then moved to send House Bill 674 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Jaron Crane — Introduces himself for the record as Representative Jaron Crane, District 12, Nampa, and explains the replacement RS.
Jaron Crane — Explains why he brought a new RS instead of using the amending order process and moves for introduction.
Jaron Crane — Responds that he will give a preliminary explanation and suggests the Attorney General can answer more fully.
Jaron Crane — Uses examples such as Penthouse, Playboy, the Statue of David, and the Bible to explain the 'taken as a whole' standard.
Jaron Crane — Explains that the Bible should be considered as a whole when evaluating the material.
Jaron Crane — Is asked to clarify the explanation further.
Jaron Crane — Uses a movie example to explain that a brief explicit scene does not define the entire work.
Jaron Crane — Declines to fully answer until the full hearing and says he can cover it in more depth then.
Jaron Crane — The transcript likely mishears the sponsor name; 'Vichneski' appears to refer to Representative Tony Vichnavsky in the next section.
Jaron Crane — Representative Crane asked whether the memorial’s aim was simply to prevent Idaho from issuing same-sex marriage licenses while still recognizing licenses from other states, and whether the goal was a state-by-state definition of marriage rather than a federal one. Representative Vich Nessi responded that the memorial is not seeking a specific outcome from the Supreme Court, only that it revisit the decision, leaving the implications of out-of-state same-sex marriages to the court. He added that Idaho is not bound to recognize rights created by other states and argued that marriage should be treated as a state issue with the state’s definition applying. In the exchange, he also said there was an apparent conflict of interest in the prior decision because some justices had previously taken sides on the issue, and he reiterated that the state definition of marriage should control.
Monica Church — Monica Church questions the repeated use of the phrase 'taken as a whole' in the RS language, expressing concern that it may be overly broad or inconsistent. She asks how the wording should be understood, whether it would exclude items like the Bible or court cases when considered as a whole, and who would determine what counts as sexually explicit under that standard.
Monica Church — Representative Church questions the witness about the legal implications of marriage as a contract, asking what happens if the legal challenge succeeds and courts change course. He raises concerns about the downstream effects on property rights, inheritance, children, adoption, veterans’ benefits, and other rights tied to marriage contracts. The later mentions are brief continuations of the same exchange as the discussion returns to Church’s questions about marriage and contract definitions.
Monica Church — Commented that the Constitution requires states to respect certifications and related interstate recognition.
Monica Church — Argued that interstate recognition applies to marriages and driver's licenses under the Constitution.
Monica Church — Compared interstate marriage recognition to Second Amendment incorporation and federal constitutional limits.
Monica Church — Continued the argument that states must recognize rights and statuses from other states, including marriage.
Monica Church — Argued against Idaho telling other states what to recognize and emphasized federal-law privileges.
Monica Church — His argument was directly addressed by Representative Skaug.
Monica Church — Responded that there is no such thing as a reversal and discussed Supreme Court precedent.
Monica Church — Continued explaining that a new case would be needed for the Supreme Court to revisit the issue.
Monica Church — Referenced in the prior discussion as having argued against the memorial.
Monica Church — Voted no on the motion.
James Holtzclaw — Moves to introduce RS 33605.
James Holtzclaw — Was called during the roll call vote; response not captured in this section.
Bruce Skaug — Representative Skaug moves to send H.J.M. 17 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Bruce Skaug — Supported the memorial as a way to return power to the states.
Bruce Skaug — Voted yes on the motion.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Representative Mickelson is called on and responds to the proposal to define marriage, saying he appreciates the intent and does not object to defining marriage. He is then asked to clarify his question or intent, and later his earlier comments are referenced as the discussion continues into related concerns, including fiscal impact.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Voted no on the motion.
Erin Bingham — Representative Bingham is referenced in the exchange about the intent of the memorial.
Erin Bingham — Representative Bingham raises the issue of balancing personal religious beliefs with the beliefs of others.
Erin Bingham — Representative Bingham continues discussing compromise, religious freedom, and non-discrimination.
Erin Bingham — Representative Bingham asks about the fiscal note and the cost of bringing a case.
Erin Bingham — Representative Bingham is addressed in the explanation of the memorial's fiscal impact.
Erin Bingham — Was addressed in the response.
Erin Bingham — Representative Bingham raised concerns tied to the Pledge of Allegiance, the Obergefell decision, religious freedom, and non-discrimination, and was then referenced as having made a very good point in the ongoing discussion.
Erin Bingham — Voted no on the motion.
Anne Haws — A member is addressed as 'Representative Fishneski'; this appears to be a transcription error for a legislator name, but the exact intended member is uncertain.
Heather Scott — Representative Heather Scott is mentioned in a continuous exchange with Representative Bingham about the fiscal note and the memorial’s purpose. The discussion clarifies that the memorial is intended only to prompt a reconsideration of Obergefell, not to direct the Attorney General to pursue litigation.
Heather Scott — Voted yes on the motion.
Heather Scott — The witness addressed Representative Scott in response to the question being posed.