Leftists and LGBT activists are predictably losing their collective minds over Idaho’s new resolution against Obergefell v. Hodges, and frankly, it’s a spectacle worthy of popcorn. Like vampires hissing at the sunlight, homosexuals, queers, and every sexual deviant under the sun are recoiling at the thought that their pet project of societal deconstruction might finally face the scrutiny it has long deserved.

They claim to stand for “justice” and “equality,” but their real fear is glaringly obvious, they’re terrified that their grotesque crimes against nature, humanity, and God will have to retreat back into the shadows—where they belong—instead of being paraded around to the world as a badge of “progress” while the rest of us reflexively gag on what they’re force-feeding us.

The Idaho resolution, a joint memorial of the state’s legislature, doesn’t pussyfoot. It calls out Obergefell as an illegitimate overreach, a decision that “arbitrarily and unjustly rejected” the time-tested definition of marriage in favor of “a novel, flawed interpretation” of the Constitution.

The resolution correctly identifies that Obergefell relies on the “dangerous fiction of treating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as a font of substantive rights,” a doctrine that gives unelected judges power they were never meant to have.

In simpler terms, the Supreme Court fancied itself a legislative body and trampled over the will of the people, the Constitution, and 2,000 years of moral sanity—all in one fell swoop.

Idaho’s resolution methodically dismantles the lies propped up by Obergefell. The court’s majority opinion, it notes, undermined the Framers’ understanding of liberty as individual freedom from governmental action and replaced it with the absurd notion that “dignity” comes from a government-issued marriage license. As if dignity, the immutable worth given by God Himself, could be conferred by bureaucrats.

The resolution skewers this claim as an affront to the Declaration of Independence’s affirmation that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” One can almost hear the leftists gnashing their teeth at such an unfiltered declaration of truth. After all, they have no use for God in their worldview—only the almighty State.

Predictably, the usual suspects are wailing in unison. The ACLU of Idaho, clutching their pearls, declared that while the resolution is not legally binding, “it is harmful nonetheless because it is a clear statement to LGBTQ+ communities that they are undeserving of equal access to rights that are afforded to anyone else.”

Harmful? What’s more harmful—standing for truth, or dismantling the foundational institution of marriage to placate cultural revolutionaries?

Their statement goes on to claim that the resolution’s true intent is to “intimidate, ostracize, and bully gay and queer people.” Please, spare me. Standing for eternal truths about marriage is hardly bullying, it’s common sense—something sorely lacking among their ranks.

Sarah Warbelow, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Human Rights Campaign, huffed that this resolution represents an “extremist attack” on LGBTQ+ rights, stating, “Extremist attacks have become de rigueur, and LGBTQ+ Americans are right to be concerned about their escalation. This cruel action by Idaho Republicans amounts to nothing more than shouting at the wind.”

Spitting into the wind? Coming from the Human Rights Campaign—the professional outrage machine—this is rich. The irony of their histrionics is that they’re the ones turning a toothless resolution into an existential crisis, proving that their movement thrives on manufactured victimhood.

Boise Pride chimed in too with their predictable lamentation that the resolution is “a stark reminder that our rights are under attack, and the fight for equality is far from over.”

But, muh rights!

If anything, the resolution reminds us that it’s the constitutional order that has been under attack by judicial activists wielding gavels like sledgehammers. The real fight here isn’t against equality but against the forced redefinition of reality itself.

And let’s not leave out the media—that ever-reliable megaphone for leftist hysteria. The New York Times, CNN, and their ilk have already trotted out “experts” to solemnly warn us about the “dangerous precedent” Idaho’s resolution could set.

If reaffirming the natural definition of marriage and restoring state sovereignty is “dangerous,” then one wonders what these pundits would call the real dangers plaguing society—the epidemic of fatherless homes, the rising tide of sexual confusion among children, and the indoctrination happening in public schools. Funny how those issues never seem to make it onto their radar.

The Idaho resolution goes further than merely rejecting Obergefell. It calls on the Supreme Court to reverse the decision and restore marriage to its “natural definition, a union of one man and one woman.” It’s an incitement to sanity in a world gone mad.

And make no mistake, the ramifications of this resolution are enormous. Should Idaho and other states succeed in this effort, it would mark the beginning of the end for the modern sexual revolution’s stranglehold on public policy. For years, activists have cloaked their agenda in the language of “equality,” but this movement exposes the truth, their goal was never equality—it was dominance, the subjugation of every dissenting voice under the banner of rainbow-colored tyranny.

Consider the ramifications for religious liberty alone. By rejecting Obergefell, Idaho sends a message that Christian bakers, florists, and business owners should not be compelled to violate their faith. It declares that parents, not schools, have the right to teach their children about marriage and morality.

It reclaims ground that was ceded when the courts decided they knew better than the voters of this nation, and more importantly, God. If that terrifies leftists, perhaps they should ask themselves why their movement requires the force of law to sustain itself. If their ideas were truly so virtuous, wouldn’t they win on merit alone?

But alas, the sexual revolutionaries and their leftist enablers can’t stomach such questions. Instead, they prefer to shout “bigotry” at anyone who dares oppose them, as if repeating the word enough times will make it true.

Yet repetition works both ways, and Idaho’s resolution repeats a truth they cannot ignore, that marriage is, always has been, and always will be the union of one man and one woman. No amount of judicial activism, social engineering, or rainbow-themed sloganeering can change that.

So let the left wail and gnash their teeth. Let the activists wring their hands and issue dire warnings of existential threats. Their panic is nothing more than the death rattle of a movement that’s built on a foundation of lies.

Idaho’s resolution and the other states pushing back are not just a challenge to Obergefell—they’re a challenge to the entire edifice of moral relativism that has poisoned our society for too long. And for that, it deserves our full support.