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.

Oh boy you really aren't the brightest bulb in the candelabra..

are you? The point is there is NO COURT to prove it in. You never get to court to have your case heard, because you have no standing. If someone doesn't rent a house to me because I'm 53.....I'm protected, because anyone over the age of 40 is protected. I can sue that person. The Idaho Fair Housing Council will write them a nasty letter and all kinds of process will come to bear. If that same person fails to rent to me because the think I'm gay....there isn't a single thing I can do about it. Same with employment, etc. Get it...if not try reading it again, sometimes it takes two or three times if you are especially thick.

Try following the conversation, hmmmph

I know that's hard when a reply is separated by several more recent replies to the same post, but I was replying to Quacker's claim that people cannot be fired from their jobs because of their age, sex, race, etc., that only gays lack protection under discrimination laws in the work place. I just think he is extremely naive to believe employers haven't learned clever ways to conceal discrimination in all the areas he mentioned, and it will be no different for gays if they are added to discrimination laws. In fact, gays in their unprotected state have much less to fear in the employment arena than older workers do. Proving discrimination on the basis of race or sex is extremely difficult, but proving age discrimination is darn near impossible.

your bulb is dimming

Because people develop ways to discriminate covertly means we should not make laws to protect those discriminated against ?? Hmmmm...lets apply the same logic to some other law. Some adults discover ways to physically abuse kids that take a long time to discern....perhaps we just forget trying to create laws to protect them. Discrimination is not as difficult to prove as you would have us believe. Btw

It ain't as rosey as you believe

Try reading this article:

Ignore the title about monetary awards and scroll down to the explanation for the dismal success rate of employment discrimination suits which constitutes about two-thirds of the entire article. You might also want to read the study by the American Bar Association cited in this article.

Pass all the laws you want. Just don't expect miracles to follow, and make sure you have lots of money for attorney fees.

You might want to choose

your words a bit more carefully. Your ignorance and bigotry is showing.

I can't wait for your

I can't wait for your enlightenment. Asking the question to you is being a bigot?

Not asking the question per se

Just your choice of words, "Choose that lifestyle", they cannot choose the way they were born any more than you could to have 2 legs and 10 toes. ( I assume you do have 2 legs and 10 toes just for arguments sake.)

Not to be defending Crater's view

but "lifestyle" is different than sexual orientation or gender identity. I do not choose to be either straight or gay, but i do choose whether to have gas or straight sex. I have heard some religious conservatives say that they dont believe being gay is a choice or a sin, but believe acting on that (having gay sex) is a sin. That sounds like a perfect plan to generate a population subset of people in need of serious therapy. I simply dont understand why so many have an issue with providing gays with the same rights/benefits that heterosexuals have.

Religion is a choice, too

and yet religion is a protected class. I would think that people who even today suffer prejudice for their religion would understand this issue better.

And, to your assuming mind,

I'm intolerant. Too funny.

And born that way? Do your words make you a bigot? BTW- Has the gene been found?


It is a scientific facts based upon genetics that sexual orientation is expressed in a person's genetic code. A code configured at the moment of conception that the individual takes no active part in designing. Are heterosexuals choosing their attractions? No. And neither are gays and lesbians. They have predetermined orientations towards their own genders and make up a real and definite percentage of humanity.

You have totally missed the failures of finding a mate.

If anything you go after the type you like, TO A FAULT, whether you realize it or not. You act the same ways and you tend to fail for the same types of reaason.

You either don't get them or they find you invisible. Either sex has obstacles that bother either side.


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

That's bull...

...and you know it!

I don't know NOTHIN' !


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

Genetic scientists are very

Genetic scientists are very careful not to attribute their discoveries to causation the way you are doing.


You really need to study before you make dumb statements. There is evidence that ones sexuality is not a choice, but something that is genetic.


Provide the evidence.


It's called the internet or earlier it was called a book. Numerous studies have shown a genetic basis.

Numerous studies, and you

Numerous studies, and you can't cite even one?

I would like to see the study that isn't couched in disclaimers (i.e. think, maybe, may have, might, perhaps, possibly).

You keep asking them to answer your stupid question is proof!


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


What would you expect from a Good Ol Boy network backed by the Mormons?

A bunch of Mormons standing out of the way?


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


If all of us aren't protected, none of us are protected. It is a good thing their are not any gay people who make decisions where to invest their money.


If all of us aren't protected, none of us are protected. It is a good thing their are not any gay people who make decisions where to invest their money.

It's not simple at all

Nothing protects us from anything, no matter who we are or what we believe. You cannot say you'll never be hit by a bus, or a drunk will rake his Mercedes against your wonderful parked midnight blue Chevy with really nice Les Schwab wheels, totalling it because he told a guy at the bar next door he "hates blue cars"...

or your dad dies of lung cancer before Christmas (second time a loved one has died from cancer at the holidays in 16 years)?

Not you nut me. You're not blessed if you stare at Led Zeppelin IV for 24 hours.

And you need to PERSERVERE! Africans didn't get relief of much help for over 400 YEARS. Don't complain, WORK IT!


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

News Flash

It's a Republican state, has been for a century, probably will be for the next. I've learned to live with that simple fact of life. Their motto is my way or the highway. So good luck with fighting the windmills.

Sadly Jay, you could be right

but still, we have to try.

Good luck with that!

You see how far it got you on this! Morals still outweigh poor choices!

Sadly I do see

how far it went. On the other hand poor choices outweighed morals today.

And still we must try.

Like I said yesterday....

If there is anything that this session's legislature has taught us, it is that tolerance will not be tolerated.

Some perspective

So victims of spousal abuse should just learn to be more tolerant and understanding, or maybe tolerance is not in of itself a virtue that lends itself to platitudes that allow you to feel virtuous.

What am i missing???

so what does "victims of spousal abuse" have to do with this issue?

Darn if I know what you're missing

The answer to your other question is, the same thing platitudes about tolerance or the lack thereof has to do with this issue. The inferred assumption that tolerance is necessarily a good thing without defined limits, or that universal tolerance for whatever turns you on can only be achieved by the coercive nature of the law is problematic logically, politically, and legally.

What a shame.

These Republicans are disgusting.

I'm so glad to see we still

I'm so glad to see we still have politicians in this great state of Idaho that understand the word IMMORAL and refuse to bend to the immoral left every whim. Good for them.


How is anything about what the gays are asking for immoral?


...How about just being gay?


How is being the way you were born immoral?


In case you weren't explained about the birds and bees, I had a normal mother and father that were married, as in female and male! Got it? I didn't think so!


In case you haven't read a book in the last 20 years, there is evidence that ones sexuality is genetic. By the way, what does your mother and father being married have to do with people being discriminated against.

They weren't "gay"!

Do you know what that means?


Alright, so they were not born gay. Neither was I, but that doesn't mean I agree with discriminating against someone for the way they were born.

You weren't... chose your poison! Maybe some people were born to be drunks, robbers, murderers, rrriiigggghhhhttt!


that argument is a stretch at best, laughable at worst

So what is immoral about a loving, sexual attraction

to someone of the same sex? I feel your judgment of gay people is hateful and immoral. To judge those different than you as immoral is prejudicial and these attitudes are part of what is wrong with todays world.

let's look at what else has been deemed "IMMORAL" over the years

Mixed race marriages, African Americans attending the same theaters/restaurants/etc as whites, Women voting, but we finally came to the conclusion that people who said that were bigots, racists, etc. We should NOT be legislating morality. These are basic human rights. Period.

What are basic human rights?

Is working a basic human right? If that's the case, then anyone who is fired or laid off is being denied a basic human right. But that can't be true. Can it? Is renting an apartment a basic human right? If that's the case then someone can't be evicted, because that would be a denial of a basic human right.
Also, the problem with the whole "legislating morality" argument is that all laws have some implicit morality included therein. For instance, those opposed to the inclusion of the sexual orientation language, may see that inclusion as a governmental approval of a morality with which they do not agree. You see? It cuts both ways.
I'll give an example that we all can agree on: inappropriate pictures of children. We both can probably agree that it is wrong (see? our own judgment comes into play), i.e., that it does not mesh with our view of right and wrong.


Your example fails the same test you put the rest to. There are people that think explicit pictures of children should be legal. They see those pictures being outlawed as the government forcing morality on them.

The fact is, some people think black people shouldn't be married to whites. They think that is immoral. yet we have a law that says it's legal. So people that oppose it would see that law as legislating morality wouldn't they?

But this law, despite the hype and dialog we're now hearing, was not about legislating homosexuality or forcing it to be accepted as moral. It was about adding to the list of things we consider protected your sexual identity. Not just a gay person's sexual identity but your's as well. This law would have protected you as a straight person just as much as it would have protected a gay person.

It would have made discrimination based on your gender identity and your sexual preferences illegal. It doesn't matter that that identity or preferences might be, whether you're in the majority or minority with them, you can still be discriminated against because of them. The law would have made that illegal. Not just for one group but for ALL groups.

Please read my comment again

I'm not sure that you understood my point. My comment went to the previous statement, and the frequently used argument, that one side or the other is attempting to legislate morality--and that this is wrong. The purpose of my comment was to point out that it is impossible to divorce morality from legislation, and that therefore this argument is useless and should be abandoned.

The first two paragraphs of your response say exactly what I was trying to say. You offer two cases (explicit pictures and interracial marriage laws) where both sides may see the legislation as an attempt to legislate morality. That was my point. I agree with you.

However, after establishing the legislating morality argument, you then go on to claim that this law is not a case of legislating homosexuality. This is where you lose me (and where you stray from the point of my comment). I never claimed that this proposed law legislates homosexuality, only that all laws implicitly legislate morality. This one does too. The moral that this law is attempting to legislate is that it is wrong to discriminate at work, for housing, etc.

I suspect that by pointing out that some may see this law as an implicit government approval of homosexuality, you understood my post to be claiming that this was my view. That was not my intent.

Again, the intent of my comment is not to claim that the proposed law legislates homosexuality. I only wish to point out that the oft-used "legislate morality" argument (or refusal to adopt legislation) is not a sound argument. Because all laws implicitly do "legislate morality," the argument is fundamentally and fatally flawed.

Amen to that!

The Kalifornia influence still hasn't taken over completely!