H.Res. 359 · 114th Congress
Providing that the House of Representatives disagrees with the majority opinion in Obergefell et al. v.…
Full title
Providing that the House of Representatives disagrees with the majority opinion in Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, and for other purposes.
Key: what the circles and colors mean
Each circle is a bill. The ring fills as it moves through Congress:
Under the number: the Yea · Nay count of its final (or latest) recorded vote. On a member's page, the small badge is how that member voted: Y Yea / Aye, N Nay / No, P Present, – Not voting.
Gold and violet are only for Yea and Nay; they never mean a party. A member's party is the letter on their photo.
Never voted on. It didn't reach a floor vote before the 114th Congress ended, so it expired. A bill has to be introduced again to be considered in a new Congress.
R
KingSponsor18 cosponsors · 18 R
R
Babin
TF
R
Franks
LG
R
Gohmert
AH
R
Harris
TH
R
Huelskamp
TY
R
Yoho
WJ
R
Jones
RA
R
Abraham
GG
R
Grothman
JB
R
Barton
MB
R
Blackburn
KC
R
Conaway
JP
R
Pitts
TW
R
Walberg
RW
R
Weber
RZ
R
Zinke
RA
R
Allen
TM
R
Murphy6 signed on when it was introduced; the rest joined later. Cosponsors who withdrew aren't shown.
Declares that the House of Representatives: (1) disagrees with the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Obergefell v.
What it does: CRS summary · Introduced in House · Jul 10, 2015
Declares that the House of Representatives: (1) disagrees with the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges and its holdings that the Fourteenth 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 (2) agrees with the four dissenting opinions, which uphold the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman and the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Expresses the sense of the House that:
- the traditional definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman;
- the majority opinion in Obergefell unconstitutionally and indefensibly distorts the definition of marriage;
- states may refuse to be bound by the holding in Obergefell;
- states are not required to license same-sex marriage or recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states; and
- 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.
Written by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. All summary versions on Congress.gov
About this bill and sources
Official title: Providing that the House of Representatives disagrees with the majority opinion in Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, and for other purposes.
Latest action (Jul 29, 2015): Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Policy area: Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Origin: House · Introduced: Jul 10, 2015
Official page on Congress.gov · Bill text (GovInfo) · Status record (XML)
No recorded floor vote found.