Ten years ago, Sue Latta fought to have her marriage recognized legally in Idaho.

It’s her name on the lawsuit, Latta v. Otter, that officially legalized same-sex marriage in Idaho in October 2014, months before the U.S. Supreme Court made same-sex marriage the law of the land in the landmark Obergefell case in June 2015.

But here we are, 10 years later, still talking about marriage equality.

Idaho Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, proposed a resolution — the first piece of legislation of the session — calling for the Supreme Court to reconsider Obergefell, calling it an “illegitimate overreach.” It asked the court to reinstate the “natural definition of marriage” — saying that it is between one man and one woman, according to previous reporting by the Idaho Statesman.

“It’s disheartening,” Latta told me in an interview at her Boise art studio. “It’s like, why are we still talking about this? Heather Scott has no dog in this fight. There is no reason. She’s not harmed. Her marriage isn’t impacted. It’s just some symbolic measure. It feels like political pandering. To whom? I don’t know.”

Latta and Traci Ehlers have been together for 21 years. They have six grandkids who live here, two businesses and own a home.

“Nobody is impacted by my marriage,” said Latta, a Boise-based mixed-media artist, sculptor and educator. “Nobody’s being harmed. There’s no downside for anybody, for us to be able to be married.”

I have to admit that I’ve been married for 27 years now, and I did not notice a single ripple in the force when same-sex marriage was legalized. All this nonsense about “protecting” so-called “traditional marriage” is bogus.

Fight for marriage equality

Latta and Ehlers got married in Idaho in 2006, just before Idaho voters passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Their marriage at the time had no force or effect of law.

In 2008, the couple got married in California, just before that state passed Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

But Idaho had another law that said the state wouldn’t recognize marriages from other states, including gay marriages.

In 2013, Latta and Ehlers and three other couples, with the help of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, sued the state of Idaho — and won.

In 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Candy Dale ruled in favor of the couples. The state appealed to the 9th District Court of Appeals, which upheld Dale’s ruling. The state of Idaho asked the U.S. Supreme Court to issue an emergency stay, which the Supreme Court granted but then vacated shortly thereafter, and gay couples began receiving marriage licenses in Idaho in October 2014.

Eight months later, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Obergefell ruling.

Why now?

One of the reasons the issue is coming back to the forefront is because some of the same legal underpinnings used to defend the right of same-sex marriage were used to defend the right to an abortion in Roe v. Wade, which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned in 2022.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas at the time indicated that the court should reconsider other rulings, including gay marriage, that relied on a similar argument of right to privacy and equal protection under the law found in the 14th Amendment.

So you can see how extremist legislators like Scott are just champing at the bit to do the same thing to gay marriage that they did to abortion rights with a conservative supermajority Supreme Court.

But there are some key differences. Scott’s measure is just an attention-grabbing resolution; it’s not a law, such as Idaho’s strict abortion ban that was triggered when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Latta won’t say she’s comfortable that Obergefell won’t get overturned, but she said a path toward overturning Obergefell isn’t nearly as clear.

“My understanding — and I am not an attorney, obviously — is that they’re going to somehow have to prove harm, right?” she said. “And they’re not going to be able to do that. I’m hopeful that the Supreme Court is still going by the law. I’d like to think that there’s nobody in the Legislature that’s being harmed by our marriage, right? What case can they bring?”

Legal benefits of marriage

And let’s be clear, taking away someone’s right to marry takes away a host of legal benefits, including tax benefits, inheritance rights, insurance benefits, Social Security and retirement benefits, medical decision-making and visitation rights, judicial protections such as spousal privilege, and parental rights.

Taking away those rights based on bigotry and discrimination regarding someone’s sexual orientation would be a violation of equal protection under the law.

“I’d like to have faith in our system, that they still have to follow the law, and that’s what we’ve got,” Latta said. “Right now, it’s the law of the land, and there’s nothing Idaho’s Legislature can do about that without a lot of process.”

It’s not entirely clear what the law would be in Idaho if Obergefell were overturned. That’s because Idaho’s constitutional amendment was ruled to be unconstitutional by two lower courts without ever making it to the Supreme Court. Idaho’s 2006 amendment is still on the books because it never was repealed, which was what other states did.

Idaho also has on the books Idaho Code 32-209, which states that Idaho would not recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.

What is clear, though, is that bringing up the issue again is mean-spirited, hurtful and does real harm.

“What’s true is, this affects your neighbors,” Latta said. “We’re just people. This is not a lifestyle. This is a life. These are lives, people’s lives. Even this idea that it could be overturned is impacting people’s lives for the negative. I mean, why? Why do you want to do that?”

Why, indeed, in a state that allegedly values freedom and liberty, would a legislator seek to take away someone’s freedom and liberty?

_____

©2025 The Idaho Statesman. Visit idahostatesman.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.