Idaho Committee Passes LGBTQ+ Book Ban on MLK Day: Rep Says It Only Bans Gay "Acts"

Idaho's House Committee on State Affairs passed HB384, a book ban targeting LGBTQ+ books. Rep Julianne Young stated it did not ban gay characters, just "acts of homosexuality," which are undefined.

On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, most legislatures across the United States were closed for business. However, this was not the case for Idaho’s Committee on State Affairs. The committee convened to discuss House Bill 384, a bill that could ban LGBTQ+ books, along with many literary classics and, potentially, the Bible in schools and libraries throughout the state. The hearing, which predominantly featured testimony opposing the bill, featured sparring over a clause that could lead to banning books with gay characters. During one notable exchange, Republican Representative Julianne Young argued that the books wouldn’t be banned for featuring gay characters, but rather for “acts” of being gay, which could include hand holding, embracing, or kissing.

The bill revisits a similar book ban passed in the state in 2023. Governor Brad Little vetoed that ban, citing potential unintended consequences for patrons and the risk of libraries facing bankruptcy. The new bill closely mirrors its predecessor, with a small change: it reduces the fine for library violations to $250. However, this reduction is vastly overshadowed by the inclusion of “legal fees” in successful book challenges; such fees could easily stretch into the tens of thousands of dollars. This critique was raised by multiple people testifying on behalf of libraries, especially considering the propensity of organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom to file lawsuits nationwide. Those testifying emphasized that these fees could lead to the bankruptcy of many libraries.

Of particular concern in the bill is the inclusion of a statute that bans, among other things, books that contain gay characters as automatically being sexually explicit. Multiple people pointed out that LGBTQ+ representation in books is important to library patrons of all ages, and that books with two dads or two moms should not be barred from the library. In response, Representative Julliane Young claimed that the book ban did not ban gay characters, but rather, only banned “acts” of being homosexuality. Watch the interaction here:

The bill indeed bans “acts” of homosexuality, a term that is left undefined in the provision being cited. Are two gay characters holding hands an “act” of homosexuality? What about two gay characters sharing an embrace, or a kiss? Later in the same hearing, one of the few people speaking in favor of the bill stated that this bill was needed to prevent books with “two men kissing.” Others called LGBTQ+ books “grooming books,” implying that the law is intended to bar all books with LGBTQ+ characters in them.

You can see the provision here, which includes “homosexuality” is automatically defined as sexual conduct among things like pedophilia and bestiality:

Homosexuality is defined as “sexual conduct” in HB384.

This specific term has surfaced elsewhere in the past year. In Murfreesboro, TN, a similar provision prohibited “acts of homosexuality” within the city, first reported by Erin In The Morning. This led to the city's Pride parade nearly being cancelled after threats from the city; it was only after a legal battle that the parade organizers were granted permission to proceed. The ordinance garnered national attention, briefly branding Murfreesboro as the city that outlawed being gay in public for a period of time; that provision has since been removed after a unanimous vote to strike it from code. Similar statutes exist in other states, including Idaho. However, enforcement of this aspect of the law has been nonexistent since the Supreme Court's legalization of sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.

The bill faced fierce opposition. Most who spoke out against it represented either libraries or parents who desire their children to have access to books that include LGBTQ+ characters. One of the strongest testimonies came from Isabella, a college student and associate librarian, who stated, “Representatives, the homophobia in this bill is blatant. The definition of sexual conduct is incorrect… homosexuality does not equate to obscenity. It is your choice to sexualize children’s books… Gay people will not go away, you cannot erase us with this bill,” who then added, “Come to storytime, hop on a bookmobile, see what evil you are supposedly fighting.”

See Isabella’s testimony here:

In a major federal ruling in Iowa in the end of 2023, the judge found that a similar law would not only target LGBTQ+ content, but also many literary classics, ultimately ruling the new law unconstitutional. Some of these classics include Ulysses, As I Lay Dying, Slaughterhouse Five, Brave New World, and more. Some schools and libraries were forced to remove up to 500 books by the law passed there; similar ramifications could arise in Idaho should the bill pass into law.

Despite significant opposition, the bill moved through the committee along party lines, with 11 Republicans voting in favor and 2 Democrats opposing. It will now advance to the full Idaho House floor, where it stands as a potential early legislative action by the state and could become one of the first anti-LGBTQ+ bills passed in 2024. This year has already witnessed the introduction of over 200 anti-LGBTQ+ bills within the first 15 days, and this bill serves a stark reminder that Republicans are not finished targeting LGBTQ+ people in state legislatures nationwide.