Title: Expressing support for Supreme Court decisions affirming the constitutionally protected right of same-sex couples to marry.
Policy area: Law

Summary:
This resolution acknowledges that same-sex couples rely upon court cases that uphold protections for same-sex couples and recognizes that all Americans should be treated fairly regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1209 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>






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. Cardenas, 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. Sanchez, 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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               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 same-sex couples of the constitutionally 
        protected freedom to marry;
Whereas the Supreme Court confirmed in Obergefell v. Hodges that ``the 
        Constitution promises liberty to all 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 same-sex 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'';
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
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) strongly opposes Justice Thomas and Justice Alito's 
        Statement in Davis v. Ermold;
            (2) acknowledges that same-sex couples have relied and are 
        relying upon the Supreme Court precedent in United States v. 
        Windsor, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Pavan v. Smith, and other 
        cases upholding the protections of same-sex couples;
            (3) recognizes that all Americans should be treated fairly 
        and equally regardless of sexual orientation or gender 
        identity; and
            (4) acknowledges the need for express legislation 
        prohibiting discrimination against LGBTQ people.
                                 <all>