Human Rights: Column
In Idaho, a Senate Committee Coldly Rejects Equality
But Boise Senator Nicole LeFavour has turned many a person around to the principle of equality for all people.By Jill Kuraitis, 2-21-09
![]() |
|
| Nicole LeFavour, D-Boise | |
Those of us who have known Senator Nicole LeFavour since long before she was elected to office know that her persistent advocacy for human rights comes not just from her fine sense of justice, but also from her gentle heart and soul.
Still the only openly gay legislator in the history of Idaho, Boise’s LeFavour again this year tried to introduce a bill in a senate committee which would have granted anti-discrimination provisions on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity under the Idaho Human Rights Act.
The room in tense silence, without a single question, call for discussion, or hearing of any kind, the committee denied the bill even the dignity of being printed.
In her typical dignified fashion, LeFavour remarked afterward, “I know better of them, and I know in their hearts they know better. That’s the hardest part.”
LeFavour’s blog post after the meeting, called “Losing Ground in Silence,” reveals her sadness, pain and fatigue.
On a simple print hearing vote this morning where seven committee members heard from Senator Coiner first and then from me on why more than 42,000 people deserve to be able to work at their jobs, go to school and live in a house or apartment without fear, the senate state affairs committee voted five to two not to introduce the proposal as a bill.
Not to even give it the courtesy of print. Not to acknowledge that discrimination against gay people might be a problem worth discussing inside the state’s law making body.
Clearly we have far far to go and need many more voices in there with ours because people all over this state live quietly in fear every day. In school rooms, in board rooms, at desks, in processing plants and apartment complexes. What are the values of a state which, by omission, condones discrimination year after year, whose lawmakers know better, but refuse to stand up and act.The committee members asked not a single question. Senator Steger, always valiant, made the motion to approve the introduction of the bill. Senator Kelly seconded. The committee was silent but for their brief voice vote. Five to two. No.
Before the disappointment of last week, LeFavour poured out her heart and hopes with this:
I see the looks on other Senator’s faces when I mention gays and lesbians. Do they think I love reminding them that I belong to a sub class of Idahoans that does not have the right to work at a job, attend a school in peace, hold a family gym membership or health insurance policy as they do? Do I love reminding them I belong to the group of people that can be forced to die alone in a hospital room; whose possessions at death can be distributed to estranged family members over the wishes of the immediate family because that family is not of the right gender.
Please tell me this all makes sense to someone.... outside religion, beyond what one person believes verses what another believes through their religious faith. Please tell me we have a legal and constitutional reason why I deserve less than those men and women I serve with every day. I am, in the words of others, a good person, a good Senator, a good hard working American, someone who has given of myself to my country and community. But I’m not good enough for equality for one small reason. A reason that affects no one in the whole world in a way that is not positive. My partner who served her country in the Air Force, is she less worthy of love or happiness? Of equality? Fairness? Respect? Humanity?
So yes to my colleagues, I am coming back this year to bother you, because you have not yet stood up again. So many of you are willing if only others will just be brave. This is the time to be brave. There is harm being done to good people every day we delay, every single day that we remain one of the few states that does not allow gay people the simple right to be employed, to go to school, to live somewhere regardless of who we love, who we have spent our lives with.
Where is the time for bravery? For justice? For eloquence? I can’t do this alone. Believe me. Can we not be brave enough to make some step forward this year?
More than two years ago, my heart wrote For Idaho, a Wish for Gay Rights.
When you love someone and they’re gay, the idea that others would hate them for no good reason is incomprehensible and bewildering, especially for children. Make no mistake: there are plenty of anti-gay folks who really do hate them. Some may hide behind religious piety, but there is a percentage who tremble with anger at the idea that gay people are free to just run around being gay. I’ve tried to understand. But I don’t.
I understand that some people believe homosexuality is forbidden by the Bible, and it is certainly their right to believe that. But again, the answer is simple: just as I sincerely respect your right to believe your way, extend to me the same courtesy, please. And a quick reminder: the law guarantees my right not to have to believe in any religion at all. Arguing Biblical reasons for opposing gay rights is arguing from an immaterial platform. Argue United States law, and I’ll listen.
I also understand that some people fear that homosexuals will be a bad influence on their children. But it’s a silly thing to fear. It’s much smarter to be concerned about violent video games, sleazy television, exposed cleavage on 13-year-olds and the shockingly high divorce rate. It’s far more protective to make sure your kids are in proper car seats, eat a low-fat diet, and get enough exercise.
The gay people in my children’s lives certainly did influence them: they taught them acceptance, equality, and love.
Senator LeFavour, through her consistent, persistent, ladylike and loving outreach, has turned many a person around to the principle of equality for all people. But still too threatened by the idea that their worldview isn’t shared by all, Senators Denton Darrington, R-Declo, Monty Pearce, R-New Plymouth, Bob Geddes, R-Soda Springs, and Russ Fulcher, R-Meridian, voted their fear and disapproval of tens of thousands of Idahoans.
But thousands of others believe in the gift of Nicole LeFavour. With her leadership, someday Idaho will be a place where the mantra of “private property rights for all” will come after “equal rights for all.”
And then we’ll be a great state.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.





Comments
The point is, perhaps you need a few more reincarnations before you realize there are real problems that affect real people in this country. Your type will be dead soon and change will come. Try as you might to infest our youth with your hatred, your nothing except for a pain in my foot. We will survive you and we will conquer you. You have my word.
NewWest.Net encourages robust and lively, but civil participation from our readers. By posting here, you agree to the NewWest.Net terms of service. You agree to keep your comments on topic, respectful and free of gratuitous profanity. Contributions that engage in personal attacks, racism, sexism, bigotry, hatred or are otherwise patently offensive will be subject to removal.
Other than using a filter that scans for comment spam, we do not moderate contributions before they are posted and we do not review every thread, so we ask that you help us in keeping the discussions civil and appropriate. Please email to notify us of comments that may violate these guidelines. Thanks for your help and cooperation.
Bill Croke, you have blatantly violated these terms and JRF and Pete B, please be more attentive.
A dead giveaway for prejudice is the use of the phrases, "you people" "you and your ilk" "people like that always" "people like you." That kind of language is also accusatory and can be part of a personal attack as well.
Fair warning: further posts of this kind will be deleted. Post your disagreements with civil, logical language.
...
I saw nothing like that in Bill Crokes' posts.
Are you trying to deny him his first amendment rights because he disagrees with you?
Can someone please explain how Bill blatantly violated these terms? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with him at this point, just wandering he's being targeted.
150 years ago, our country was recovering from a terrible conflict which had been brought on, in part, by the practice of slavery. 40 years ago, a great man "had a dream" of universal brotherhood where people would be judged by their inner qualities and not their outward appearance. Last month, we inaugurated a new President whose very election can be traced back to these historical events.
The old hatreds eventually die out. One day, homophobia will die out as well and the attitudes expressed by the likes of Bill Croke and others will become little more than historical footnotes. We need merely ensure that today's youth recognize these attitudes for what they are. Though the battle may take decades to be resolved, we will win out in the long run.
What does this mean? It means that a company looking for places to move or expand won't come here, but is instead more likely to go to one of the nearby states that does offer such protection. This isn't just for looking good to gays and lesbians, but because straight people often make judgments about a company based on its support for gay and lesbian issues. Companies that don't want to be seen as harboring prejudice against gays aren't going to come here.
Also, the logic behind some Senators' objection is nonsensical. They claim that homosexuality shouldn't be a protected class because it's "behavioral."
Leaving aside the argument about whether being gay is a choice or a matter of genetics, let's point out that religion is also considered to be a protected class, even though religion is behavioral.
It wasn't that long ago here in Idaho that people who were LDS were forbidden by law from voting or holding office. Fortunately, we moved on from that -- just as, in time, we will move on from this.
And can you tell us how denying gays the right to marry represents "equal rights?" We're all ears.
Does anyone know what was in the bill?
Does anyone even care?
How in GOD"S name can you argue about something when you have no idea what you're arguing about?
"tried to introduce a bill in a senate committee which would have granted anti-discrimination provisions on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity".
That's lot of information. What did those provisions look like? Does anyone know? Does anyone even care? Or are you just arguing for arguement's sake?
I'm all for anti discrimination based on anything. All people should be treated with the respect they earn based on who they are and what they do,not the color of their skin or any other factor, but before I get behind anything, I have this rediculous idea that I should know what I'm supporting and this small snippet of information says absolutely nothing about why this bill was rejected or what was in it. Just Jill's opinion of what it would do if it got through the legislature.
How on Earth does anyone arrive at such a conclusion anyway? 'Special rights' would be giving gays a "Get out of jail free" card or giving them special tax refunds that aren't available to straights or something else along those lines.
The point I was trying to make is that things like that could have been in the bill. Or not. Nobody knows, and until we do, how can we have an intelligent discusion on it?
Where did you find a copy of the bill, I would like to read it.
I might agree with you if I could only see what the bill contained.
Then again, I might disagree.
How wonderful it must be to hold the power of censoring any post which does not ones personal perspectives...
Jill, you go, girl!
Must be a pretty shallow gene pool in your fair state. OMGosh!
Dakotahgeo
- Cutting state funding for PBS for running documentary on homosexual acceptance at progressive schools
- Advocating more difficult divorce laws so we can return to the 1950's society and its culture.
- Advocating for mandatory high school attendance until age 18
- continually voting against day care center standards
- one who didn't pay federal taxes for 7 years
Pls feel free to add to this, the short list.
If we don't allow pilots to fly after age 60 due to declining physical skills why not give these mostly old, tired, biased Republicans an IQ test before elections? or move the Legislature to a seniors home?
Well over 1000 benefits of marriage have been documented. These are rights that states and federal governments give to heterosexual couples with a mere stroke of a pen (and the cost of the wedding license).
And X Beidler: please show where "choice" is involved. Please? All those psychologists, biologists and other scientists really need to know that all of that data that indicates it is rarely a "choice" is bogus and that they can all go work on something else. Oh, and while you are at it, can you please tell me how religion, being a "choice", is eligible for special rights?
None of the four areas mentioned above are behaviors...one is born with three internal parts of their being. Religion, or the lack of it, is a learned part that we either accept or reject. Religion is far from a behavior, but even I question that when dealing with conservative right-wing nuts.
You need to educate yourself, and fast. You're losing out to the hare in that famous race.
Pastor Dak!
PS: You may want to back track your genealogy also. You might be related to the Runestone or the Portabella line.
Give all intelligent people state monies to get out of Idaho (even though it is a beautiful state) ASAP and start building a fence around backward states like Wyoming, Idaho, and the likes of them.
Good heavens, people, it's 2009!
Dakotahgeo!
color, disability and age (40+) in
employment
The above are currently protected from discrimination by both Idaho and Federal law. How many people choose their race, sex, national origin, color, disablility and age? No choice.
Religion is choice.
Even accepting, against much scientific evidence, that being gay is a universal choice, excluding sexual orientation from these laws is not logical, like much morality. Try accepting all people as humans with the dignity, inherent dignity.
Why legally protect some and not others from discrimination?
S.D.G.
..that's Interesting you put LGBT in the catagory of "Lifestyle" choice...actually hon..."Religion" is a Behavior,a learned Behavior, a LIFESTYLE choice. Who are you to tell others how/or who to love? (as in another consenting adult m/or F...?) Perhaps this wouldn't even have to be brought up..IF America TRULY lived up yto EQUALITY for ALL Americans...and NOT base who gets how many rights..USING Religion as a basis. KEEP your religion to yourself..likes it supposed to be..between YOU and YOUR GOD. Your God is NOT everyone elses/fellow Americans. America has a Constitution..read the 14th Ammendment.
As far as economic impact, I choose to make major purchases (including cars, expensive bikes, vacations, etc) from other, more gay friendly states. I do not own nor will I purchase real estate here, nor will I stay here after my contract runs out. And the reason is because Idaho (as a collective whole) continues to silently discriminate against me and my family.
Hope you change your mind soon but it might take 20 years for the state to change much. The non-accepting culture is too ingrained especially in the rural areas which have unjustified power in the state legislature.
http://www.hrc.org/news/12083.htm
http://www.hrc.org/12150.htm
"August 2008 Victory! California Supreme Court unanimously rules in favor of Benitez, making clear that California’s state law prohibiting discrimination must be followed."
And I'd like to hear how a choice like religion can be used to discriminate against someone on any basis. Can a Christian doctor refuse treatments for a Jew or a Muslim? Vice Versa? Not in America, where everyone is equal. Well, at least some seem to be more equal than others, right stan?
Tell me, what other things would you be in favor of if the majority of people voted for it? Forbidding LDS from holding political office? Taking the vote away from women? Reinstituting slavery?
We have a constitution that declares equal rights, equal protection under the law for all. If majority ruled, whewwww!
In 10-15 years our children will look back and think "what were they thinking"
The fertility MD case is another issue completely, much different than discrimination at the workplace. One is religious freedom the other bigotry.
But if thats what you want, you have that freedom. Just be aware you are quickly on the path to becoming a minority, so the same thing can be done to your kind later on, if your viewpoint becomes the norm.
Let me give you some advice: keep your persecution complex to yourself. It doesn't do your argument any good at this point.
I believe the topic of the discussion was Ms. Lefavour trying to introduce a bill that wasn't alowed to be even printed.
Nobody knows what the bill was about, so we can't express an opinion on wether it should have been printed or not. I'm still waiting to see what she proposed, then I'll pass judgement on the legislature.
Dak!
That's the way the Idaho Legislature works. A sponsoring legislator takes the bill to the committee, and they decide whether to print it. If they print it, it's publicized, the committee holds hearings on it, they vote on it, if it passes then that body votes on it, if it passes then it goes to the other body, it's assigned to a committee, they vote on it, if it passes then that body votes on it, and if it passes it goes to the Governor for a signature.
For more details, look here: http://legislature.idaho.gov/about/howabillbecomesalaw.htm
"It sounds like you're saying Senator LeFavour was doing something nefarious and fortunately the committee caught her at it and so didn't print the bill."
Reading back over my statement, I can see how it could be interpreted as such, but the point I was trying to make is that the story is about Senator Lefavour trying to pass a bill that didn't go anywhere. It isn't about gay marriage, it isn't about discrimination. It's about a proposed piece of legislation that wasn't given a chance, and until we know what the proposal was about, it's kind of hard for any one of us to confront our legislators and tell them we would like to see this thing given consideration. Or not. This is a good oportunity to bring it to the public and let the people of Idaho decide what should be done with it. Have you forgotten how Reagan and Clinton kept appearing on television asking the people to pressure congress into supporting their causes? Isn't that what our representives in government are expected to do? Is there something preventing the senator from publicizing her proposal and asking for public support?
If homosexuality is wrong because Leviticus said so over 2,500 years ago from a desert cave in the mid-east, then slavery is right as it was approved in the bible in those days.
Also if homosexuality is wrong, then god is wrong as She created all creatures.
Homophobia is so gay.
The good people of Idaho already know this. We just hear the negative stuff from the losers.
And Douglas Stambler, don't be so sure about Ms. LaFavour's re-election chances. Look at Iowa, NY, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine...the list goes on and on. Could Idaho conceivably be next???
;-)