Idaho lawmakers ponder state's definition of marriage - for tax purposes

Some state lawmakers will face a tough vote today in the House, when they have to decide whether to remove Idaho’s definition of marriage from the tax code.

The so-called “conformity bill” will be considered for a full vote of the state House of Representatives.

It is a “housekeeping” bill passed every year to bring Idaho tax code in line with the Internal Revenue Service’s tax code for the purpose of filing income taxes.

But this year, there’s a twist. The IRS has changed its definition of marriage to reflect same-sex couples, but Idaho’s tax code still defines marriage the same way the state constitution does — between one man and one woman. That’s the same language the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional last year while paving the way for same-sex marriages nationwide.

House Bill 354 would remove the following language from Idaho code: “For all purposes of the Idaho income tax act, a marriage must be one that is considered valid or recognized under section 28, article III, of the constitution of the state of Idaho and defined in section 32-201, Idaho Code, 20 or as recognized under section 32-209, Idaho Code.”

The bill was passed through the House Revenue and Taxation Committee this week with three members opposed to the measure — Rep. Greg Chaney, R-Caldwell; Rep. Ronald Nate, R-Rexburg; and Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard.

Rep. Luke Malek, R-Coeur d’Alene, said the bill creates a dilemma for some conservative legislators because if they don’t pass it, it will make filing taxes incredibly difficult, and if they pass it, they have to ignore the definition of marriage in the state constitution, which legislators are sworn to uphold.

“It would be absolute hell on the taxpayers by not passing conformity,” Malek said. “It would make filing taxes very difficult.”

Malek said he is hearing that a growing number of legislators are going to vote against the bill today on the House floor.

“It is going to be an issue,” he said. “It will be horrendous for Idahoans if we don’t pass conformity.”

Malek said the problem is the Idaho Constitution contains an invalid law.

Other lawmakers were just hearing about the bill Wednesday afternoon.

Rep. Don Cheatham, R-Post Falls, said he had just heard today that the bill was going up for a vote.

“I have not read it yet,” he said. “It sounds like I will have to read it (today).”

Rep. Kathy Sims, R-Coeur d’Alene, said she is going in early this morning to read the bill herself.

“I have not read the bill yet,” Sims said. “The way I understand it, it will only affect the tax bill.”

Sims said she has been assured that HB 354 will not affect the constitution.

“I will read the bill to make sure it doesn't impact the constitution,” she said. “I am more concerned about our constitution and protecting that.”

Rep. Ron Mendive, R-Post Falls, said he is torn on the issue.

“I really haven’t decided which way I am going to vote on it yet,” he said, adding he read the bill Wednesday afternoon. “The problem is we lost in the Supreme Court. I don’t agree with that decision, but we lost.”

Mendive said he agrees with Idaho’s definition of marriage, but he also understands the chaos that would occur if the conformity bill doesn’t pass.

“Think the Supreme Court is running over us on this one,” he said, adding the court’s decision on same-sex marriage was split five votes to four. “I agree with the dissenters on this. I do believe it is a state issue.”

Still, Mendive said the bill does need to pass, even if he doesn’t agree with it.

“I think I will just have to sleep on this one. We’ll see, I guess,” Mendive said.