Concurrent resolution; recognizing that marriage is between one man and one woman; calling on the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges.
Summary
Senate Concurrent Resolution 8 is a nonbinding resolution declaring that marriage should be understood as between one man and one woman and urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. The resolution argues that Obergefell conflicts with the original meaning of the Constitution, state authority over marriage, and Oklahoma’s own constitutional and statutory provisions. It also states that the decision has harmed religious liberty and contributed to litigation against people of faith, and it asks the Court either to reverse Obergefell or return marriage policy fully to the states.
The resolution does not create new criminal penalties or regulatory requirements, but it reaffirms existing Oklahoma law and constitutional provisions, specifically Article II, Section 35 of the Oklahoma Constitution and Section 3 of Title 43 of the Oklahoma Statutes. It also directs that copies be sent to the U.S. Supreme Court, congressional leaders, Oklahoma’s congressional delegation, and the Oklahoma Attorney General. In practical terms, the measure is symbolic and political, aimed at expressing the Legislature’s position on marriage law and federal constitutional interpretation rather than changing state marriage administration by itself.
Impact
SCR8 would not directly amend Oklahoma statutes or alter marriage licensing procedures on its own; instead, it expresses the Legislature’s support for Oklahoma’s existing constitutional definition of marriage and its opposition to the federal constitutional ruling in Obergefell. The resolution reinforces current state law by citing Article II, Section 35 and Title 43, Section 3, and it seeks to influence federal courts and policymakers by formally urging reversal of Obergefell or restoration of state control over marriage policy. Its legal effect is therefore indirect and declaratory rather than operative.
Sentiment
The available context suggests strong support from the resolution’s author and likely supporters who favor traditional marriage definitions, state sovereignty over marriage policy, and opposition to Obergefell. The bill text is framed in emphatic and ideological terms, reflecting a clear proponent sentiment that the Supreme Court should revisit same-sex marriage precedent. No committee debate or recorded votes are provided, so there is no evidence in the record here of organized opposition or amendment activity, but the subject matter itself is highly polarizing.
Contention
The central point of contention is whether marriage should remain defined as between one man and one woman or whether same-sex marriage rights recognized in Obergefell should remain protected nationwide. Supporters of the resolution argue that the decision exceeded constitutional authority, undermined state power, and burdened religious liberty; opponents would likely view the resolution as an attack on marriage equality and settled constitutional rights. The resolution also raises broader disputes over federalism, substantive due process, and the relationship between religious objections and civil marriage law.
Carry Over
Concurrent resolution; recognizing that marriage is between one man and one woman; calling on the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges.