Obergefell

2025-2026 Bill 5501: Obergefell - South Carolina Legislature Online

South Carolina General Assembly
126th Session, 2025-2026
Download
This Bill
in Microsoft Word Format
Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
H. 5501
STATUS INFORMATION
Concurrent Resolution
Sponsors: Reps. Frank, Magnuson, Harris, Pace, Yow, McCravy, Long, Bowers, J.E. Johnson and Jordan
Document Path: LC-0485DG-DG26.docx
Introduced in the House on April 2, 2026
Currently residing in the House
Summary: Obergefell
HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS

Date

Body

Action Description with journal page number

4/2/2026

House

Introduced (
House Journal-page 29
)

4/2/2026

House

Referred to Committee on
Invitations and Memorial Resolutions
(
House Journal-page 29
)

4/14/2026

House

Member(s) request name removed as sponsor: Oremus

4/15/2026

House

Member(s) request name removed as sponsor: Willis

View the latest
legislative information
at the website
VERSIONS OF THIS BILL
04/02/2026

A concurrent RESOLUTION

TO REJECT THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OBERGEFELL DECISION AND TO CALL ON THE
SUPREME COURT TO REVERSE OBERGEFELL AND RESTORE THE NATURAL LAW DEFINITION OF
MARRIAGE, A UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN AND TO INSIST ON RESTORING THE ISSUE
OF MARRIAGE AND ENFORCEMENT OF ALL LAWS PERTAINING TO MARRIAGE BACK TO THE
SEVERAL STATES AND THE PEOPLE.

W
hereas, the decision
by the Supreme Court of the United States in
Obergefell v Hodges
, 576
U.S. 644 (2015), is at odds with the Constitution of the United States and the
principles upon which the United States is established; and

W
hereas, liberty has
long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a
right to a particular governmental entitlement; and

W
hereas, Obergefell
invokes a definition of "liberty" that the Framers would not have recognized,
rejecting the idea captured in the Declaration of Independence that human
dignity is innate, and instead suggested that it comes from the government; and

W
hereas, when the
Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created
equal" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," they
referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of
God and therefore of inherent worth; and

W
hereas, Obergefell
undermines this vision by declaring that citizens must seek dignity from the
state; and

W
hereas, Obergefell relies on
the dangerous fiction of treating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution as a font of substantive rights, a doctrine that
strays from the full meaning of the Constitution and exalts judges at the
expense of the people from whom they derive their authority; and

W
hereas, Obergefell's inversion
of the original meaning of liberty causes collateral damage to other aspects of
our constitutional order that protect liberty, including religious liberty; and

W
hereas, the Supreme Court
recognized in
United States v Windsor
, 57031 U.S. 744 (2013), that the
definition of marriage is "an area that has long been regarded as a virtually
exclusive province of the States," meaning that South Carolina, and not the
Supreme Court, has the right to regulate marriage for its citizens; and

W
hereas, Obergefell requires
states to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples and to recognize same sex
marriages in complete contravention of their own state constitutions and the
will of their voters, thus undermining the civil liberties of those states'
residents and voters; and

W
hereas, marriage as an
institution has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman for more
than two thousand years, and within common law, the basis of the United States'
Anglo American legal tradition, for more than 800 years; and

W
hereas, Obergefell arbitrarily
and unjustly rejected this definition of marriage in favor of a novel, flawed
interpretation of key clauses within the Constitution and our nation's legal
and cultural precedents; and

W
hereas, the Obergefell
Decision was illegitimate because two of the Justices in the majority ruling,
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, had previously officiated same
sex weddings, and thus were not impartial triers of fact, and therefore should
have recused themselves according to 28 U.S.C. Section 455; and

W
hereas, Kentucky county clerk
Kim Davis was persecuted for her faith in refusing to issue same sex marriage
licenses, and the Supreme Court declined to uphold and defend her First
Amendment rights on account of the passage of
Obergefell v Hodges
; and

W
hereas, since court rulings
are not laws and only legislatures elected by the People may pass laws,
Obergefell is an illegitimate overreach; and

W
hereas, the people of the State
of South Carolina voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman via
constitutional amendment approved at the 2006 General Election by a vote of
nearly 78% to 22%. Now, therefore,

B
e it resolved by the House
of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

T
hat the members of the
South Carolina General Assembly, by this resolution, reject the Supreme Court
of the United States Obergefell decision and call on the supreme court to
reverse Obergefell and restore the natural law definition of marriage, a union
of one man and one woman and to insist on restoring the issue of marriage and
enforcement of all laws pertaining to marriage back to the several states and
the people.

B
e it further resolved South
Carolina General Assembly calls upon the Supreme Court of the United States to
reverse Obergefell and restore the natural law definition of marriage, a union
of one man and one woman, as was recognized at the Founding.

B
e it further resolved that
the South Carolina General Assembly insists on restoring the issue of marriage
and enforcement of all laws pertaining to marriage back to the several states
and the people.

B
e it further resolved that
a copy of this resolution be presented to the Supreme Court of the United
States.

----XX---

This web page was last updated on April 2, 2026 at 11:10 AM