Senate Republicans quickly kill Idaho 'Add the Words' gay rights bill

Republicans on the Senate State Affairs Committee declined Friday to introduce a bill adding sexual orientation and gender identity to Idaho's human rights law. The law would extend protections in employment, housing, education and public accommodation.

The committee's two Democrats favored printing the bill, authored by committee member Edgar Malepeai of Pocatello, who was joined by Sen. Michelle Stennett, D-Ketchum.

Malepeai took a long pause as he made his case for a public hearing on the bill, fighting back tears, and apologized to the committee for "my emotional breakdown."

Chairman Curt McKenzie, R-Nampa, said no apology was necessary, and Sen. Chuck Winder, R-Boise, told Malepeai he appreciated his passion and expressed respect for Malepeai. McKenzie later said that had there been a roll call, he would have voted to introduce the bill. The measure died on a voice vote.

No public testimony was taken, which is the custom for hearings on bill introduction.

The vote was taken without debate.

About 300 proponents attended the hearing. After the short meeting ended, people placed about 30 sticky notes on the committee dais. Then then gathered in the hallway outside the committee room to sing "We Shall Overcome."

Earlier, McKenzie moved the hearing to accommodate the crowd. Before the meeting Sen. Nicole LeFavour, D-Boise, expressed skepticism that the crowd would convince McKenzie to move the hearing.

"They're not going to move it," she said.

After McKenzie announced the move, LeFavour said, "He's great. I don't expect him to be a bear about anything."

LeFavour is Idaho's only openly lesbian or gay lawmaker.

Live streaming of the hearing is
available on Idaho Public TV.

You can follow Idaho Statesman Politics on Twitter.


It is not a hate crime in Idaho to assault or kill a person based upon their sexual orientation. This type of crime is punished more severely than simple assault or murder because it has the added stipulation that the crime was committed specifically because of the victim's sexual orientation. It is similar to hate crimes against people because of their skin colors, nationality, or religious beliefs. Idaho's laws need to update for stricter punishments. Furthermore, Idaho does not recognize gay/lesbian marriage or afford persons in those unions the same protections that heterosexuals enjoy. Gays and lesbians are also not protected in their places of employment, or offered similar insurance benefits in marital unions. This too needs to change.


Did you really just suggest that murder should be punished differently based on the victims sexual orientation? Should we also punish more severley if the victim is a red-head because maybe the killer hates Gingers? Do you think every straight person who is murdered is killed because they are straight? Then why would you think every gay person is murdered just because they are gay?
You are placing a higher value on a gay life than you are on a straight life. Isn't this exactly the type of thing you are accusing of?

It doesn't exactly work that way

Its not a hate crime simply because of the gender, race or sexual orientation. You would still have to prove that the motivating factor was race etc. it isn't automatic.

Corrupting the law with emotions

Is not anger/hate, whether of a recent or long enduring nature, not a motivating factor in a majority of person on person crimes? Keeping in mind that emotions, per se, are not criminal, why is hating someone because of their race more grievous than hating all rich people, or all blondes, or all game hunters, or all politicians?

If unchecked hatred results in a crime (e.g. a boy kills his father because he hated him) we punish the crime, not the emotion that led to the crime. Using the law to categorize hate and singling out certain forms of hate for additional punishment is simply not logical and is in fact discriminatory.

We need to stick with punishing actions we deem to be criminal and not criminalize the feelings behind the actions.

But we dont just punish the action.

We have various degrees of murder and punishment for them is different.

Wrong, kj

Indeed, there are different degrees of murder, but the emotions or irrational thinking that led to 1st or 2nd degree murder are not what's on trial or eventually punished. That doesn't mean a prosecutor won't try to portray the defendant as mean and hateful to sway the jury, but he is after a murder conviction only, not a conviction based on how the defendant felt about his victim.

The different degrees of murder pertain to considerations such as how much planning went into the crime or how gruesome the crime is perceived to be. Did the defendant simply shoot the victim, or did he rape his victim and chop her body into little pieces? Was the victim a helpless child or disabled person, or was the victim someone having an affair with the defendant's spouse? Nevertheless, as far as the law is concerned, the defendant's emotions are not relevant to the act of killing someone. I see no reason to make them relevant in some cases and not others. The law is supposed to be objective, not subjective, and emotions are getting into extremely subjective territory.

motive plays a big part in the determination of the charge and

Punishment. How is this not different?
"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government." Neil Peart

In Perry Mason films, yeh,

In Perry Mason films, yeh, it makes for a better story.

Seriously, does a psychopath need a motive? Prosecutors are not required to prove a motive, and even if they have evidence suggesting why a particular suspect likely committed a crime, they still need substantial evidence apart from motivation that will prove the defendant actually did commit the crime. Motive can play an important role at sentencing, but it can work to the defendant's favor if there were mitigating circ-umstances that provide a rational motive (i.e. self-defense). What about the assumed motive in wrongful convictions?

Hate crimes are the one and only exception where the motive itself is the alleged crime which a prosectuor is required to prove. That's a huge difference and IMO a dangerous precedent.

Dump the Red Bull, you've been saturated.


It's still clunky and the writing is horrible as usual

Sorry, they are not born

Sorry, they are not born that way. They CHOOSE that lifestyle.

People choose religion, too

and yet that is a protected class.

Read the law first.

Sexual orientation is protected to. Look it up under "sex" in the IHR web site. Declare a sex, your protected.

I forgot. Those that don't have a sex aren't protected.

Please explain

Can you show the law where that is listed?

Ah ha!

Another Bachmann sychophant. According to her and her very odd husband, prayer is the answer.

Scientists estimate that 10% of other species are homosexual too, no doubt, also by choice. They need your prayers too.

You may choose a "lifestyle"

but you dont choose whether you ARE gay or straight. Pull you head out and do some real research

Prove it.

Show the research. Yet, if you could,it wouldn't matter. We all are protected. Why should some be more protected than others.

Put up-shut up. what ever. Quit trolling.


It's still clunky and the writing is horrible as usual

From the master troller!

Nice non-anything. Have a take or move on.

Art Garfunkel

I don't even have the board with the old lady in a polka-dotted dress bent over, much less a garden!


To be ridiculed, you must first believe something


Yeah I chose to have ackholes like you discriminate against me. We are born gay or lesbian. Our only choice is to accept ourselves and not hide who we are from bigots like you. This change in Idaho Law would mean if my landlord who rents me an apartment in a building with 10 other apartments can't discriminate and kick me out just because I decide not to lie and hide who I am. If my employer finds out I am gay after working for him for 5 years he can't fire me just because his minister preaches bigotry.

For you to tell me that I was not born gay, I ask you, when did you finally decide whether or not you were attracted to a man or a woman? Or are you a wide standing, toe tapping closet case who can't admit to yourself who you are?

And the rest of us

have to put up with your name-calling. I think I should have a special protection against you calling me or others names. Maybe a&&hole drivers, because no one likes them, should have special language protecting them.

You act like you're going to explode if it's not right and now.

that's why your cause is good but your whining is trite.


It's still clunky and the writing is horrible as usual


Are you gay? If you were, you would understand the fact that most gay individuals have said they knew from childhood that they were gay. It is as genetic as your eye color or your left/right brained leanings. Or are you trusting your outdated manual written prior to the dark ages to give you the most recent science news? Back away from the BS and read something that has actual facts. And if you can "pray away the gay," how come you can't "pray away the ignorance?"

How about add a R, shaken not stirred?


It's still clunky and the writing is horrible as usual

Join the 21st Century already?

First of all the term is "Homosexual", not gay (look it up in the dictionary, oh I'm sorry, my dictionary is 20 years old). Homophobia is unacceptable to the modern world we live in? Since when? It is a legitimate fear when it equates to homosexual pedophilic predators. Whom do you think young boys have their first homosexual experiance with? Usually before they have ever experianced a heterosexual relationship they have been taken advantage of by an older male. So sex is sex, it gives pleasure. A great deal of the young so called "homosexual" boys are not homosexual at all. They are sexually abused children who do not have the mental capacity at their age to determine whether they are or are not a homosexual. Once they realize that they were a victim of a sex crime they are confused and ashamed and definately not GAY by any sense of the word. Lesbians on the other hand are often but not always victims of sexually abusive men who they then tend to gravitate towards gentler relationships and that is with another woman. What's next, Brahma? Protection for those who wish to marry Goats? These legislators are just voting for what the majority of Idaho's population thinks and feels. Yes if it bothers homosexuals that much then please do move to the "progressive" state of Washington and practice your behavior 24/7. Meanwhile here Idaho is staying the course that sexual orientation is not of a minority status.


Time for y'all to grow up, own up and accept there are others that are just as human as you.

The equal rights

are already extended to those who choose that lifestyle. Having specific language highlighting their choice is pandering.

If they can be fired from a

If they can be fired from a job for simply being gay, then I don't think they already have equal rights. I can't be fired for being male, I can't be fired because of my age, I can't be fired because of my religion. Why should they be allowed to be fired simply for being who they are?

Its called

wrongful termination. My question is how did the employer find out? Should the aggrieved have discussed things of a sexual nature at work?

You are such a bigot

People don't have to discuss sex to know whether they are gay or straight. Your narrow minded view of anything different from you is pretty disgusting. Just as heterosexuality is more than just who you "sleep" with so is homosexuality. It is about life, love, happiness, and who you are. Not everything is about sex, get your mind out of the gutter.


Cry me a river!

What a well thought out and intelligent reply.



Tee hee!

Don't act worse then they did tossing it out.


It's still clunky and the writing is horrible as usual

I infer

From "Xavier" that he writer is both Hispanic and Catholic, two groups who are traditionally homophobic (except when it's the parish priest or bishop who's doing the buggering)


But it's just more of your drivel, cause I'm neither, just a red-blooded American, born and bred(by male and female for those of you that need help understanding that)in the U.S., with morals! What are you going to want next, legalized marriage between humans and animals?

Xavier's Morals...

Are put on display daily with his knee-jerk trolling that the rest of you respond to. Don't waste your time on this clown. If you would just ignore him, he'd get bored and go back to chasing the neighborhood children out of his lawn.


The problem with applying insulting labels to others is that it is almost impossible to not be seen as having the very attributes we deplore.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged." Matthew 7:1

Taken in context of the next five verses, we see that this is not a commandment but an advisory statement regarding the consequences of judging others. The standards by which we judge others will be applied to us. Elsewhere in Scripture Jesus does command us to practice discernment which amounts to forming a sensical judgement about a person or situation. In as much as we could be wrong in interpreting sensical knowledge, it is sometimes best to keep those judgements to ourselves until we have confirmation from an objective and neutral source.


You should be careful to try and use the word of God to justify immorality, you should stick to your liberal agenda and see what happens...
and BTW - homosexuals, transgenders etc have more rights NOW than Christians do in state govenrment - They don't need more 'rights', Christians do!

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...

Stupid overgeneralizations.

Answer the question. A view would be an opinion, not a question. Why so defensive?

I'm a bigot?

I asked how the employer found out. You sound prejudice! And need to stop hating me. I think I need a special laww protecting me to.

Gay or straight at work

You don't have to discuss things of a sexual nature. How many co-workers talk about their husbands or wives, boyfriends, girlfriends or fiancee? Is that shoving their heterosexuality in our faces?

No more

than a guy talking about his boyfriend is shoving is homosexuality in yours.


they can be fired for real or perceived homosexuality. That doesn't take discussing improper subjects.

Not "wrongful termination."

Not "wrongful termination." Unless you're protected (e.g., anti-discrimination laws, whistleblower statutes, etc.), Idaho's an at-will state. You can be fired for purple shoelaces, and you can be fired for being gay.

Well no

For starters this is a right to work state so there really isn't a "wrongful termination" argument that will work.

And it's more than just about being fired. In Idaho you can be denied a home loan, an apartment, a job etc... simply because of your partner.

Think about this: A gay business owner can refuse to hire you because you're straight. Your gay landlord can evict you because you heterosexual.

It's not just about protecting gay people. It's about protecting us all. I can't be denied a job because of my race, my age, my politics, my religion or my gender. But I can be denied a job because I like women.

I think your logic is spot on

but Right to Work has nothing to do with "wrongful termination". We are an "At Will" state, meaning all employment is at will unless there is some contract making it otherwise. There are few exceptions to the at will doctrine and one is a PUBLIC POLICY exception, meaning if you fire someone for a reason that is against public policy, you will likely be found in the wrong. Sorry, I agree with you, I just want to separate those two things.

Or saw them out to dinner with their partner

Or at the grocery store...or just heard rumors around town that those,two guys living together aren't just room mates.
Is mentioning your wife or family considered discussion of a "sexual nature"?

don't you talk about your wife and kids at work?

That's all it takes.

Wrong, Quacker

You can be fired (or not hired in the first place) for all those things, but you will have a hard time proving it in a court of law.