Text of MI HR 43 (2025)

HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 43 Reps. Conlin, Hoskins, McFall, Koleszar, Martus, Hope, MacDonell, Pohutsky, Weiss, Breen, Dievendorf, Glanville, Morgan, Miller, Grant, Byrnes, Andrews, Tsernoglou, Mentzer, Brixie, Wooden, Scott, Rheingans, Arbit, Skaggs and Foreman offered the following resolution: A resolution to support the Obergefell decision and to reaffirm the definition of marriage as put forth by the founding principles including the separation of church and state. Whereas, The decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges upholds the Constitution of the United States and the principles upon which our nation is established. Liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement. Obergefell?s reaffirmation of the original meaning of liberty reinforces other aspects of our constitutional order that protect liberty, including religious liberty; and Whereas, 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, have inherent worth. Obergefell celebrates this vision by reaffirming that individual rights are protected from the state; and Whereas, While marriage has historically been regulated by states, the Supreme Court?s ruling in Obergefell rightfully affirms that state laws must align with constitutional guarantees of equality and due process, ensuring that no state may infringe upon the fundamental right to marry. In particular, Article I, Section 25 of the Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963, which states ?the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage? was determined to be in direct conflict with the constitutional principles upheld in Obergefell; and Whereas, Marriage, an institution that has remained a critical aspect of society for thousands of years, has been defined through time by some people of varying cultures and faiths as a union between one man and one woman. Obergefell wisely rejected this narrow, historical definition of marriage, instead choosing to rely on founding principles of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses within the Constitution of the United States and our nation?s legal and cultural precedents; and Whereas, Obergefell relies on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as a font of substantive rights, a doctrine that reinforces the full meaning of the Constitution and preserves the power given by the people, for the people, through which all government authority is established. As the Fourteenth Amendment has no explicit language prohibiting a constitutional right to marriage, Obergefell aligns with the principle of individual liberty by ensuring that marriage rights are protected under the Fourteenth Amendment; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we support the Obergefell decision and we reaffirm the definition of marriage as put forth by the founding principles including the separation of church and state; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives, Minority Leader of the Michigan House of Representatives, and the Governor.