IV 
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. HAR-
RIS, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. YOHO, and Mr. GOHMERT) submitted the fol-
lowing 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 be-
tween 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 founda-
tion of the State’s broader authority to regulate the sub-
ject 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 re-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:06 Jul 10, 2015
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR359.IH
HR359
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
•HRES 359 IH 
ferred 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 tra-
ditional 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 Constitu-
tion as it was understood by the drafters upon the adop-
tion 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; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:06 Jul 10, 2015
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR359.IH
HR359
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
•HRES 359 IH 
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 mar-
riages performed out-of-State; and 
(B) agrees with the four dissenting opin-
ions 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 Representa-
tives that— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:06 Jul 10, 2015
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR359.IH
HR359
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
•HRES 359 IH 
(A) the traditional definition of marriage is 
a union between one man and one woman; 
(B) the majority opinion in Obergefell un-
constitutionally 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 mar-
riages performed in other States; and 
(E) individuals, businesses, churches, reli-
gious groups, and other faith-based organiza-
tions are encouraged, empowered, and protected 
to exercise their faith without fear of legal or 
government interference. 
Æ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:06 Jul 10, 2015
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\HR359.IH
HR359
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS