[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 359 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 359

Providing that the House of Representatives disagrees with the majority 
    opinion in Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 10, 2015

 Mr. King of Iowa (for himself, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Babin, Mr. 
    Harris, Mr. Huelskamp, Mr. Yoho, and Mr. Gohmert) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
Providing that the House of Representatives disagrees with the majority 
    opinion in Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, and for other purposes.

Whereas the traditional definition of marriage is a union between one man and 
        one woman;
Whereas the opinion of the majority of the Supreme Court in United States v. 
        Windsor, written by Justice Kennedy, affirmed that ``The definition of 
        marriage is the foundation of the State's broader authority to regulate 
        the subject of domestic relations with respect to the `[p]rotection of 
        offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital 
        responsibilities.''';
Whereas the opinion of the majority of the Supreme Court in Obergefell et al. v. 
        Hodges et al. (in this resolution referred to as ``Obergefell'') 
        distorts the meaning of the word ``marriage'' to create an 
        unconstitutional right to same-sex marriage;
Whereas the opinion of the majority in Obergefell distorts the word ``liberty'' 
        in the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution;
Whereas the dissenting opinions in Obergefell uphold the traditional definition 
        of marriage as a union between one man and one woman;
Whereas the dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Roberts in Obergefell states 
        that ``[T]his Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a 
        good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges 
        have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.'';
Whereas the dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia in Obergefell states that 
        ``With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question 
        properly left to them--with each decision that is unabashedly based not 
        on law, but on the `reasoned judgment' of a bare majority of this 
        Court--we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.'';
Whereas the dissenting opinion by Justice Thomas in Obergefell upholds the 
        traditional interpretation of the word ``liberty'' in the 14th amendment 
        to the Constitution as it was understood by the drafters upon the 
        adoption of the 14th amendment and properly outlines the historical 
        understanding of the word ``liberty'' from its understanding in the 
        Magna Carta, through William Blackstone, to the Founders, and to the 
        drafters of the 14th amendment;
Whereas the dissenting opinion by Justice Alito in Obergefell states that 
        ``Today's decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to 
        decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of 
        marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences. It 
        will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new 
        orthodoxy.'';
Whereas the opinion of the majority in Obergefell is a clear case of judicial 
        activism; and
Whereas the majority of the Supreme Court in Obergefell acted legislatively, 
        which is an unconstitutional violation of the principle of separation of 
        powers: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That--
            (1) the House of Representatives--
                    (A) disagrees with the majority opinion in 
                Obergefell and its holdings that the 14th amendment to 
                the Constitution requires States to license marriages 
                between same-sex couples and requires States to 
                recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-State; 
                and
                    (B) agrees with the four dissenting opinions in 
                Obergefell, which uphold the traditional definition of 
                marriage as a union between one man and one woman and 
                the original meaning of the 14th amendment; and
            (2) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
                    (A) the traditional definition of marriage is a 
                union between one man and one woman;
                    (B) the majority opinion in Obergefell 
                unconstitutionally and indefensibly distorts the 
                definition of marriage;
                    (C) the States may refuse to be bound by the 
                holding in Obergefell;
                    (D) the States are not required to license same-sex 
                marriage or recognize same-sex marriages performed in 
                other States; and
                    (E) individuals, businesses, churches, religious 
                groups, and other faith-based organizations are 
                encouraged, empowered, and protected to exercise their 
                faith without fear of legal or government interference.
                                 <all>