Senate Joint Resolution 15 is a nonbinding legislative resolution in which the Montana Legislature formally rejects the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The resolution states that Obergefell is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the historical understanding of marriage, and it urges the Supreme Court to reverse that decision.
The resolution further calls for marriage policy and enforcement of marriage laws to be returned to the states and the people, and directs the Secretary of State to transmit the resolution to the U.S. Supreme Court. It does not amend Montana statutes or create new state regulatory requirements; instead, it functions as a formal expression of the Legislature’s position on marriage law and constitutional interpretation.
Impact
SJ 15 would not directly change Montana statutes or alter current marriage licensing rules, but it would place the Legislature on record opposing Obergefell and advocating for a return to state control over marriage policy. Its practical effect is symbolic and political rather than regulatory, though it signals support for a legal framework in which states could again define marriage without federal constitutional constraints if Obergefell were overturned.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had support from a conservative bloc in the Senate, but it did not advance and ultimately died in process. The committee vote to table the resolution passed 6-2, indicating that most members present favored setting it aside rather than moving it forward. Overall, the sentiment in the available record suggests organized support among sponsors and like-minded legislators, but insufficient broader committee backing to proceed.
Contention
The central point of contention is same-sex marriage and whether the U.S. Supreme Court should continue to recognize a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples. Supporters of the resolution argue that marriage should be defined by states and that Obergefell was wrongly decided; opponents, as reflected by the tabling vote, appear to have rejected the resolution’s premise or preferred not to endorse a call to overturn established precedent. The resolution also raises broader constitutional and religious-liberty arguments, but the main dispute is over marriage equality and the legitimacy of federal judicial review.