Rights or Wrong?
Photo: Video by IdahoOnYourSide.com
Sarah Curtis and Amy schaeffer married in San Diego this July.
"We wanted a beach wedding," Sarah chuckled.
Earlier this month, Amy gave birth to the couple's first child.
"We want to do the best that we can and definitely take care of our kiddo and each other," Sarah said.
A federal ruling from the Department of Labor says gay and lesbian married couples are entitled to the same 401K plans, pensions and health plans as heterosexual couples, even if they live in states like Idaho that don't recognize gay marriage.
"It's nice that we're able to do it and file (tax returns) jointly," Amy said. "Now I don't have to worry about who can claim the house. It would be great if i could get Sarah on my benefits at work. I don't see how that harms anybody."
But Caldwell GOP State Senator Jim Rice says this new federal ruling undercuts states' rights.
"In Idaho marriage should be defined based on Idaho law, not Washington law," Rice said.
In June the Supreme Court struck down a portion of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples.
Senator Rice argues this federal ruling not only goes against the high court ruling when it struck down DOMA but the legislator also believes it directly defies the will of Idaho voters who in 2006 passed an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage between one man and one woman."
"Each state should be entitled to define marriage within that state," Rice said. "Now, what this law says: "Yeah, no you can't."
One thing all parties agree on -- this ruling puts the nation one step closer to guaranteeing marriage equality.
"For Idaho and the other states that aren't there yet, I think it means they're headed in that direction whether they want to or not," Amy Curtis-Schaeffer said.
"We're fortunate enough to have found each other and we're soulmates," Sarah Curtis-Schaeffer said. "So, yell out soulmates, it sounds a lot better."