Old	New	Differences
1	1
2	2
3	3
4	4	Req. No. 2085 Page 1 1
5	5	2
6	6	3
7	7	4
8	8	5
9	9	6
10	10	7
11	11	8
12	12	9
13	13	10
14	14	11
15	15	12
16	16	13
17	17	14
18	18	15
19	19	16
20	20	17
21	21	18
22	22	19
23	23	20
24	24	21
25	25	22
26	26	23
27	27	24
28	28	1
29	29	2
30	30	3
31	31	4
32	32	5
33	33	6
34	34	7
35	35	8
36	36	9
37	37	10
38	38	11
39	39	12
40	40	13
41	41	14
42	42	15
43	43	16
44	44	17
45	45	18
46	46	19
47	47	20
48	48	21
49	49	22
50	50	23
51	51	24
52	52
53	53	STATE OF OKLAHOMA
54	54
55	55	1st Session of the 60th Legislature (2025)
56	56
57	57	SENATE CONCURRENT
58	58	RESOLUTION 8 By: Deevers of the Senate
59	59
60	60	and
61	61
62	62	Olsen of the House
63	63
64	64
65	65
66	66
67	67	AS INTRODUCED
68	68
69	69	A Concurrent Resolution recognizing that marriage is
70	70	between one man and one w oman; calling on the Supreme
71	71	Court of the United States to overturn Obergefell v.
72	72	Hodges; and directing distribution.
73	73
74	74
75	75
76	76
77	77	WHEREAS, the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States
78	78	in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) , conflicts with the
79	79	original public meaning of the United States Constitution, the
80	80	principles upon which the U nited States is established, and the
81	81	deeply rooted history and tradition of the United States regarding
82	82	the nature of marriage and state powers; and
83	83	WHEREAS, in 2004, the people of Oklahoma affirmed State Question
84	84	711, now codified in the Oklahoma Constitution, Article II, Section
85	85	35, with over 75% of Oklahomans voting to recognize marriage as the
86	86	union of one man and one woman, prohibit marriage benefits for
87	87	unmarried individuals, invalidate same -sex marriages from other
88	88
89	89
90	90	Req. No. 2085 Page 2 1
91	91	2
92	92	3
93	93	4
94	94	5
95	95	6
96	96	7
97	97	8
98	98	9
99	99	10
100	100	11
101	101	12
102	102	13
103	103	14
104	104	15
105	105	16
106	106	17
107	107	18
108	108	19
109	109	20
110	110	21
111	111	22
112	112	23
113	113	24
114	114	1
115	115	2
116	116	3
117	117	4
118	118	5
119	119	6
120	120	7
121	121	8
122	122	9
123	123	10
124	124	11
125	125	12
126	126	13
127	127	14
128	128	15
129	129	16
130	130	17
131	131	18
132	132	19
133	133	20
134	134	21
135	135	22
136	136	23
137	137	24
138	138
139	139	states, and make issuing licenses i n violation of subsection C of
140	140	such section a misdemeanor; and
141	141	WHEREAS, liberty is and has long been understood , from
142	142	Blackstone to the Framers to America ’s history and tradition until
143	143	2015, as individual freedom from unwarranted governmental intrusion,
144	144	not a right to a particular governmental entitlement as falsely
145	145	asserted in Obergefell; and
146	146	WHEREAS, when the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of
147	147	Independence that “all men are created equal ” and “endowed by their
148	148	Creator with certain unalienable Rights ,” they referred to a vision
149	149	of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and
150	150	therefore of inherent worth; and
151	151	WHEREAS, Obergefell asserts that g overnmental licensing of same -
152	152	sex marriage is necessary to confer human dignity, contrary to
153	153	Justice Clarence Thomas’ observation that, first, “the Constitution
154	154	contains no ‘dignity’ Clause,” and second, “even if it did, the
155	155	government would be incapable o f bestowing dignity”; and
156	156	WHEREAS, Obergefell abuses the Fourteenth Amendment ’s Due
157	157	Process clause to fabricate substantive rights, a practice Justice
158	158	Thomas has frequently urged the court to abandon, including in Dobbs
159	159	v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizati on, 597 U.S. 215 (2022) ; and
160	160	WHEREAS, Obergefell’s inversion of the natural and true meaning
161	161	of liberty causes collateral damage to other aspects of our
162	162
163	163
164	164	Req. No. 2085 Page 3 1
165	165	2
166	166	3
167	167	4
168	168	5
169	169	6
170	170	7
171	171	8
172	172	9
173	173	10
174	174	11
175	175	12
176	176	13
177	177	14
178	178	15
179	179	16
180	180	17
181	181	18
182	182	19
183	183	20
184	184	21
185	185	22
186	186	23
187	187	24
188	188	1
189	189	2
190	190	3
191	191	4
192	192	5
193	193	6
194	194	7
195	195	8
196	196	9
197	197	10
198	198	11
199	199	12
200	200	13
201	201	14
202	202	15
203	203	16
204	204	17
205	205	18
206	206	19
207	207	20
208	208	21
209	209	22
210	210	23
211	211	24
212	212
213	213	constitutional order that protect liberty, including religious
214	214	liberty; and
215	215	WHEREAS, the Supreme Court recognized in United States v.
216	216	Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), that the definition of marriage is “an
217	217	area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province
218	218	of the States,” meaning that Oklahoma, and not the Supreme Court,
219	219	has the right to regula te marriage for its citizens; and
220	220	WHEREAS, Obergefell requires states to license and recognize
221	221	same-sex marriages in complete contravention of their own
222	222	constitutions or electorate, thus undermining the civil liberties of
223	223	those states’ residents and voters without any valid constitutional
224	224	warrant for doing so; and
225	225	WHEREAS, for millennia marriage h as been understood, both in
226	226	biblical teaching and in the Anglo -American common-law tradition, as
227	227	the lifelong covenant union of one man and one woman; and
228	228	WHEREAS, Obergefell arbitrarily and unjustly rejected and
229	229	prohibited states from recognizing this definition of marriage in
230	230	favor of its own definition of marriage and a novel, flawed
231	231	interpretation of key clauses within the United States Constitution
232	232	and our nation’s legal and cultural precedents; and
233	233	WHEREAS, the Obergefell decision was illegitimate bec ause two of
234	234	the Justices in the majority ruling, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg
235	235	and Elena Kagan, had previously officiated same -sex weddings, and
236	236
237	237
238	238	Req. No. 2085 Page 4 1
239	239	2
240	240	3
241	241	4
242	242	5
243	243	6
244	244	7
245	245	8
246	246	9
247	247	10
248	248	11
249	249	12
250	250	13
251	251	14
252	252	15
253	253	16
254	254	17
255	255	18
256	256	19
257	257	20
258	258	21
259	259	22
260	260	23
261	261	24
262	262	1
263	263	2
264	264	3
265	265	4
266	266	5
267	267	6
268	268	7
269	269	8
270	270	9
271	271	10
272	272	11
273	273	12
274	274	13
275	275	14
276	276	15
277	277	16
278	278	17
279	279	18
280	280	19
281	281	20
282	282	21
283	283	22
284	284	23
285	285	24
286	286
287	287	thus were not impartial triers of fact, and therefore should have
288	288	recused themselves according to 28 U.S.C. , Section 455; and
289	289	WHEREAS, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that the
290	290	Obergefell decision vilifies people of faith by “portray[ing]
291	291	everyone who does not share th e majority’s ‘better informed
292	292	understanding’ as bigoted,” and Justice Samuel Alito wrote similarly
293	293	that the Obergefell decision vilifies people of faith by falsely
294	294	comparing those who recognize that marriage is between a man and a
295	295	woman to those who oppose interracial marriage, a comparison now
296	296	frequently weaponized against people of faith; and
297	297	WHEREAS, the Obergefell decision has resulted in litigation
298	298	directly targeting Christians , such as Colorado baker Jack Phillips
299	299	and Washington florist Barronelle Stu tzman, for adhering to the
300	300	historic definition of marriage; and
301	301	WHEREAS, by declaring sex dif ferences legally irrelevant to
302	302	marriage, Obergefell played a role in erasing biological
303	303	distinctions in other arenas, threatening women ’s privacy, safety,
304	304	and athletic opportunities; and
305	305	WHEREAS, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women ’s Health Organization (2022),
306	306	the Supreme Court restored to the states authority over areas “the
307	307	Constitution does not prohibit the states from regulating, ” thereby
308	308	inviting reconsideration of Ober gefell on the same federalism
309	309	grounds.
310	310
311	311
312	312	Req. No. 2085 Page 5 1
313	313	2
314	314	3
315	315	4
316	316	5
317	317	6
318	318	7
319	319	8
320	320	9
321	321	10
322	322	11
323	323	12
324	324	13
325	325	14
326	326	15
327	327	16
328	328	17
329	329	18
330	330	19
331	331	20
332	332	21
333	333	22
334	334	23
335	335	24
336	336	1
337	337	2
338	338	3
339	339	4
340	340	5
341	341	6
342	342	7
343	343	8
344	344	9
345	345	10
346	346	11
347	347	12
348	348	13
349	349	14
350	350	15
351	351	16
352	352	17
353	353	18
354	354	19
355	355	20
356	356	21
357	357	22
358	358	23
359	359	24
360	360
361	361	NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE OF THE 1S T SESSION
362	362	OF THE 60TH OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
363	363	CONCURRING THEREIN:
364	364	THAT the Oklahoma Legislature hereby urges the Supreme Court of
365	365	the United States to overturn its unconstitutional holding in
366	366	Obergefell v. Hodges and recognize that marriage is between one man
367	367	and one woman, or to return full authority over marriage policy to
368	368	the several states.
369	369	THAT the Oklahoma Legislature reaffirms Article II, Section 35
370	370	of the Oklahoma Constitution and Section 3 of Title 43 of the
371	371	Oklahoma Statutes.
372	372	THAT copies of this resolution be distributed to the Supreme
373	373	Court of the United States , to the President of the United States
374	374	Senate, to the Speaker of the United States House of
375	375	Representatives, to each member of the Oklahoma congressional
376	376	delegation, and to the Attorney General of Oklahoma.
377	377
378	378	60-1-2085 KC 5/1/2025 3:43:13 PM

Oklahoma 2025 Regular Session

Oklahoma Senate Bill SCR8 Compare Versions