Compare MT SJ 15 (2025) and SD HCR 6012 (2025)

The introduced text of these two bills, side by side, with the wording they share.

259 shared 8-word phrases found in the introduced text of these two bills.

This highlights wording the two bills share in their introduced text. A shared passage may include text that both bills quote from the same existing law, not only language either one drafted. A match shows that the texts overlap; it does not show who drafted a bill, and filing order alone does not show which bill copied which.

MT SJ 15 (2025)SD HCR 6012 (2025)
in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 10 (2015), is at odds with the Constitution of the United States and the principlesin Obergefell v. 3 Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is at odds with the Constitution of the United States and the 4 principles
established; and 12 WHEREAS, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from government action, not as a 13 right to a particular governmental entitlement; and 14 WHEREASestablished; and 5 WHEREAS, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental 6 action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement; and 7 WHEREAS
the idea captured in the Declaration of Independence that human dignity is innate and 16 instead suggests that it comes from the government; and 17 WHEREAS, when the framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created 18 equal" and are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," they referred to a vision of mankind 19 in which all humans are created in the image of God and are therefore of inherent worth; and 20 WHEREAS, Obergefell undermines this vision by declaring that citizens must seek dignity from the 21 state; and 22 WHEREAS, Obergefell relies on the dangerous fiction of treating the Due Process Clause of thethe idea captured in the Declaration of 9 Independence that human dignity is innate, and instead suggested that it comes from the 10 government; and 11 WHEREAS, when the founders proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that all men 12 are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, they 13 referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and are 14 therefore of inherent worth; and 15 WHEREAS, the ruling in Obergefell undermines this vision by declaring that citizens must 16 seek dignity from the state; and 17 WHEREAS, the ruling in Obergefell relies on the dangerous fiction of treating the Due 18 Process Clause of…
as a font of substantive rights, a doctrine that strays from the full meaning of the 24 Constitutionas a 19 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; andand exalts judges at the expense of the people from whom they derive their 21 authority; and
causes collateral damage to other 26 aspects of our constitutional order that protect liberty, including religious liberty; and 27 WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court recognized in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 28 (2013), that the definition of marriage is "an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive provincecauses 1 collateral damage to other aspects of our constitutional order that protect liberty, including 2 religious liberty; and 3 WHEREAS, the Supreme Court recognized in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 4 (2013), that the definition of marriage is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually 5 exclusive province
and not the Supreme Court, has the right to regulate marriage for its 2 citizens; and 3 WHEREAS, Obergefell requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to 4 recognize same-sex marriages in complete contravention of their own state constitutions and the will of their 5 voters and thus undermines the civil liberties of those states' residents and voters; and 6 WHEREAS, marriage as an institution has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman 7 for more than 2,000 years and within common law, the basis of the United States' Anglo-American legal 8 tradition, for more thanand not the Supreme Court, 6 has the right to regulate marriage for its citizens; and 7 WHEREAS, the ruling in Obergefell requires states to issue marriage licenses to same sex 8 couples and to recognize same-sex marriages in complete contravention of their own state 9 constitutions and the will of their voters, thus undermining the civil liberties of those states' 10 residents and voters; and 11 WHEREAS, marriage as an institution has been recognized as the union of one man and 12 one woman for more than two thousand years and within common law, the basis of the United 13 States' Anglo-American legal tradition, for more than
Obergefell arbitrarily and unjustly rejected this definition of marriage in favor of a novel, 10 flawed interpretation of key clauses within the Constitution ofObergefell arbitrarily and unjustly rejected this definition of 15 marriage in favor of a novel, flawed interpretation of key clauses within the Constitution of
our nation's legal and cultural precedents; and 11 WHEREAS, theour nation's legal and cultural precedents; and 17 WHEREAS, the
justices in the majority ruling, 12 Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, had previously officiated same-sex weddings and thus were 13 not impartial triers of fact and therefore should have recused themselves according to 28 U.S.CJustices in the majority ruling, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, had previously 19 officiated same-sex weddings, and thus were not impartial triers of fact, and therefore should 20 have recused themselves according to 28 U.S.C
overreach. 16 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THEoverreach; 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the
a union of one man and one 23 womana union of one 27 man and one woman