IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1209 

Expressing support for Supreme Court decisions affirming the constitutionally 

protected right of same-sex couples to marry. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 30, 2020 

Mr. PAPPAS (for himself, Ms. CRAIG, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York, Mr. CICILLINE, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. HIGGINS

of New York, Ms. TITUS, Mr. LYNCH, Mr. COOPER, Ms. GARCIA of 

Texas, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. NORTON, Mr. MEEKS, Mrs. MURPHY of Florida, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, 

Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Mr. DEUTCH, Mr. BEYER, Mr. COX of California, 

Ms. LEE of California, Mr. POCAN, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, 

Mr. NADLER, Mr. ROSE of New York, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. KILMER, Mr. 

RASKIN, Mr. TRONE, Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts, Ms. MENG, Mr. PANETTA, Mrs. TRAHAN, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. CASTEN of Illinois, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. 

SCHIFF, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. CISNEROS, Ms. 

CLARKE of New York, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. ROUDA, Mr. 

DESAULNIER, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Ms. SHALALA, Mr. WELCH, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Mr. LEVIN of Michigan, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire, Mr. 

QUIGLEY, Mr. BROWN of Maryland, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Ms. DELBENE, Ms. PRESSLEY, Mr. KHANNA, Ms. JUDY CHU of 

California, Mr. KIM, Mr. MCEACHIN, Mrs. DEMINGS, Mr. SIRES, Ms. 

WEXTON, Mr. SOTO, Ms. WILD, Ms. DEAN, Mrs. LEE of Nevada, Ms. 

JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. JAYAPAL, Mr. HORSFORD, Mr. EVANS, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. PALLONE, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. NEGUSE, Ms. 

SA ́NCHEZ, Mr. CASTRO of Texas, Mr. CARBAJAL, Mr. LAWSON of Florida, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. ADAMS, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. PETERS, Ms. PINGREE, Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Mr. FOSTER, Mrs. 

HAYES, Ms. HAALAND, Mr. CORREA, Mr. YARMUTH, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. 

DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Ms. HOULAHAN, Mr. GOTTHEIMER, Ms. 

UNDERWOOD, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. BONAMICI, Mr. BERA, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. STANTON, Mr. CASE, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New 

York, Ms. DEGETTE, Ms. ESCOBAR, Mr. SUOZZI, Mr. MOULTON, and 

Mr. TED LIEU of California) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1209 IH 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for Supreme Court decisions affirming 

the constitutionally protected right of same-sex couples 

to marry. 

Whereas, on June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court held in 

Windsor v. United States that the so-called Defense of 

Marriage Act unconstitutionally deprived same-sex couples of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment; 

Whereas pursuant to the Windsor ruling, same-sex couples 

cannot be deprived of Federal benefits and protections 

provided by the Government to married couples in a wide 

array of areas; 

Whereas Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg recognized that 

Federal marital benefits affect every area of life, and that 

denying them to married same-sex couples created, in effect, a ‘‘sort of skim milk marriage’’; 

Whereas married same-sex couples have accessed and relied 

upon these equal benefits, including some funded generally by all program participants, such as Social Security survivor benefits, and many that can provide an essential economic lifeline, such as retirement benefits and 

veteran and military benefits, as well as inheritance benefits and other Federal tax benefits; 

Whereas, on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court held in 

Obergefell v. Hodges that States may not deprive samesex couples of the constitutionally protected freedom to 

marry; 

Whereas the Supreme Court confirmed in Obergefell v. 

Hodges that ‘‘the Constitution promises liberty to all 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1209 IH 

within its reach, a liberty that allows persons, within a 

lawful realm, to define and express their identity’’; 

Whereas, on June 27, 2017, the Supreme Court confirmed in 

Pavan v. Smith that it is unconstitutional to deny samesex couples the benefits and responsibilities of marriage 

that are provided to different-sex couples; 

Whereas the Census Bureau has estimated there are approximately 543,000 same-sex married-couple households in 

the United States and almost 500,000 households with 

same-sex unmarried partners living together; 

Whereas there are an estimated 114,000 same-sex couples 

raising children in the United States; 

Whereas same-sex couples are seven times more likely than 

different-sex couples to be raising an adopted or foster 

child; 

Whereas same-sex couples may not be deprived of the right 

to marry and the protections and responsibilities of marriages in 29 other countries; 

Whereas the European Court of Justice requires that all European Union countries recognize same-sex couples’ marriages for immigration purposes; 

Whereas, on October 5, 2020, Supreme Court Justice Thomas issued a Statement, with which Justice Alito joined, 

concerning the Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of 

certiorari in Kim Davis v. David Ermold; 

Whereas the Statement improperly invites legal challenges to 

the Supreme Court’s important Obergefell precedent by 

announcing the Justices are seeking to grant review of a 

case that ‘‘cleanly’’ challenges that precedent in order to 

address what they characterize as a ‘‘problem that only 

it can fix’’; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
4 

•HRES 1209 IH 

Whereas the Statement incorrectly asserts the Obergefell v. 

Hodges decision brands religious adherents as ‘‘bigots’’; 

Whereas the Statement wrongfully frames marriage equality 

for same-sex couples and religious liberty interests as 

mutually exclusive; 

Whereas marriage equality for same-sex couples does not impinge upon the rights of clergy or religious institutions by 

forcing them to solemnize the marriages of same-sex couples, just as they are free not to solemnize the marriages 

of couples of different faith traditions; 

Whereas although the rulings in Windsor v. United States, 

Obergefell v. Hodges, and Pavan v. Smith are Supreme 

Court precedents preventing the Federal and all State 

governments from marriage-related discrimination 

against same-sex couples, Federal legislation is needed to 

prevent discrimination against same-sex couples and 

LGBTQ individuals in the private sector; 

Whereas, on May 17, 2019, the House of Representatives 

passed the Equality Act in a bipartisan vote; and 

Whereas, on May 20, 2019, the Senate received the Equality 

Act for consideration and has not acted on the bill: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) strongly opposes Justice Thomas and Jus3 tice Alito’s Statement in Davis v. Ermold; 

4 (2) acknowledges that same-sex couples have re5 lied and are relying upon the Supreme Court prece6 dent in United States v. Windsor, Obergefell v. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
5 

•HRES 1209 IH 

1 Hodges, and Pavan v. Smith, and other cases up2 holding the protections of same-sex couples; 

3 (3) recognizes that all Americans should be 

4 treated fairly and equally regardless of sexual ori5 entation or gender identity; and 

6 (4) acknowledges the need for express legisla7 tion prohibiting discrimination against LGBTQ peo8 ple. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS