,,iv #aafth ,,congress #b;d ,session ,h4 ,,res4 #abji ,,in ,,the ,,house ,,of ,,representatives ,october #cj1 #bjbj,mr4 ,pappas 7for himself1 ,ms4 ,craig1 ,mr4 ,takano1 ,mr4 ,sean ,patrick ,maloney of ,new ,york1 ,mr4 ,cicilline1 ,mr4 ,carson of ,indiana1 ,mr4 ,higgins of ,new ,york1 ,ms4 ,titus1 ,mr4 ,lynch1 ,mr4 ,cooper1 ,ms4 ,garcia of ,texas1 ,mrs4 ,napolitano1 ,ms4 ,davids of ,kansas1 ,mr4 ,payne1 ,ms4 ,norton1 ,mr4 ,meeks1 ,mrs4 ,murphy of ,florida1 ,ms4 ,wasserman ,schultz1 ,ms4 ,kelly of ,illinois1 ,mr4 ,deutch1 ,mr4 ,beyer1 ,mr4 ,cox of ,california1 ,ms4 ,lee of ,california1 ,mr4 ,pocan1 ,ms4 ,mc,collum1 ,ms4 ,schakowsky1 ,mr4 ,nadler1 ,mr4 ,rose of ,new ,york1 ,mr4 ,cuellar1 ,mr4 ,kilmer1 ,mr4 ,raskin1 ,mr4 ,trone1 ,ms4 ,clark of ,massachusetts1 ,ms4 ,meng1 ,mr4 ,panetta1 ,mrs4 ,trahan1 ,mr4 ,larsen of ,washington1 ,mr4 ,casten of ,illinois1 ,mr4 ,kennedy1 ,mr4 ,hastings1 ,mr4 ,larson of ,connecticut1 ,mr4 ,schiff1 ,mr4 ,grijalva1 ,ms4 ,roybal-,allard1 ,mr4 ,cisneros1 ,ms4 ,clarke of ,new ,york1 ,mr4 ,smith of ,washington1 ,mr4 ,rouda1 ,mr4 ,de,saulnier1 ,ms4 ,kaptur1 ,mr4 ,danny ,k4 ,davis of ,illinois1 ,mrs4 ,lawrence1 ,ms4 ,shalala1 ,mr4 ,welch1 ,mr4 ,espaillat1 ,mr4 ,levin of ,michigan1 ,mrs4 ,watson ,coleman1 ,ms4 ,kuster of ,new ,hampshire1 ,mr4 ,quigley1 ,mr4 ,brown of ,maryland1 ,mr4 ,crdenas1 ,mrs4 ,davis of ,california1 ,ms4 ,del,bene1 ,ms4 ,pressley1 ,mr4 ,khanna1 ,ms4 ,judy ,chu of ,california1 ,mr4 ,kim1 ,mr4 ,mc,eachin1 ,mrs4 ,demings1 ,mr4 ,sires1 ,ms4 ,wexton1 ,mr4 ,soto1 ,ms4 ,wild1 ,ms4 ,dean1 ,mrs4 ,lee of ,nevada1 ,ms4 ,johnson of ,texas1 ,ms4 ,jayapal1 ,mr4 ,horsford1 ,mr4 ,evans1 ,mr4 ,kildee1 ,mr4 ,mc,govern1 ,mr4 ,pallone1 ,ms4 ,eshoo1 ,mr4 ,neguse1 ,ms4 ,snchez1 ,mr4 ,castro of ,texas1 ,mr4 ,carbajal1 ,mr4 ,lawson of ,florida1 ,mr4 ,de,fazio1 ,ms4 ,adams1 ,mr4 ,sarbanes1 ,mr4 ,peters1 ,ms4 ,pingree1 ,ms4 ,mucarsel-,powell1 ,mr4 ,lowenthal1 ,mr4 ,foster1 ,mrs4 ,hayes1 ,ms4 ,haaland1 ,mr4 ,correa1 ,mr4 ,yarmuth1 ,mr4 ,langevin1 ,mr4 ,david ,scott of ,georgia1 ,ms4 ,houlahan1 ,mr4 ,gottheimer1 ,ms4 ,underwood1 ,mr4 ,blumenauer1 ,ms4 ,bonamici1 ,mr4 ,bera1 ,mr4 ,doggett1 ,mr4 ,stanton1 ,mr4 ,case1 ,mrs4 ,carolyn ,b4 ,maloney of ,new ,york1 ,ms4 ,de,gette1 ,ms4 ,escobar1 ,mr4 ,suozzi1 ,mr4 ,moulton1 and ,mr4 ,ted ,lieu of ,california7 submitted the following resolution2 which was referred to the ,committee on the ,judiciary ,,resolution ,expressing support for ,supreme ,court decisions affirming the constitutionally protected right of same-sex couples to marry4 ,whereas1 on ,june #bf1 #bjac1 the ,supreme ,court held in ,windsor v4 ,united ,states that the so-called ,defense of ,marriage ,act unconstitutionally deprived same-sex couples of the liberty protected by the ,fifth ,amendment2 ,whereas pursuant to the ,windsor ruling1 same-sex couples cannot be deprived of ,federal benefits and protections provided by the ,government to married couples in a wide array of areas2 ,whereas ,supreme ,court ,justice ,ginsburg recognized that ,federal marital benefits affect every area of life1 and that denying them to married same-sex couples created1 in effect1 a sort of skim milk marriage2 ,whereas married same-sex couples have accessed and relied upon these equal benefits1 including some funded generally by all program participants1 such as ,social ,security survivor benefits1 and many that can provide an essential economic lifeline1 such as retirement benefits and veteran and military benefits1 as well as inheritance benefits and other ,federal tax benefits2 ,whereas1 on ,june #bf1 #bjae1 the ,supreme ,court held in ,obergefell v4 ,hodges that ,states may not deprive same-sex couples of the constitutionally protected freedom to marry2 ,whereas the ,supreme ,court confirmed in ,obergefell v4 ,hodges that the ,constitution promises liberty to all within its reach1 a liberty that allows persons1 within a lawful realm1 to define and express their identity2 ,whereas1 on ,june #bg1 #bjag1 the ,supreme ,court confirmed in ,pavan v4 ,smith that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the benefits and responsibilities of marriage that are provided to different-sex couples2 ,whereas the ,census ,bureau has estimated there are approximately #edc1jjj same-sex married-couple households in the ,united ,states and almost #ejj1jjj households with same-sex unmarried partners living together2 ,whereas there are an estimated #aad1jjj same-sex couples raising children in the ,united ,states2 ,whereas same-sex couples are seven times more likely than different-sex couples to be raising an adopted or foster child2 ,whereas same-sex couples may not be deprived of the right to marry and the protections and responsibilities of marriages in #bi other countries2 ,whereas the ,european ,court of ,justice requires that all ,european ,union countries recognize same-sex couples' marriages for immigration purposes2 ,whereas1 on ,october #e1 #bjbj1 ,supreme ,court ,justice ,thomas issued a ,statement1 with which ,justice ,alito joined1 concerning the ,court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari in ,kim ,davis v4 ,david ,ermold2 ,whereas the ,statement improperly invites legal challenges to the ,supreme ,court's important ,obergefell precedent by announcing the ,justices are seeking to grant review of a case that cleanly challenges that precedent in order to address what they characterize as a problem that only it can fix2 ,whereas the ,statement incorrectly asserts the ,obergefell v4 ,hodges decision brands religious adherents as bigots2 ,whereas the ,statement wrongfully frames marriage equality for same-sex couples and religious liberty interests as mutually exclusive2 ,whereas marriage equality for same-sex couples does not impinge upon the rights of clergy or religious institutions by forcing them to solemnize the marriages of same-sex couples1 just as they are free not to solemnize the marriages of couples of different faith traditions2 ,whereas although the rulings in ,windsor v4 ,united ,states1 ,obergefell v4 ,hodges1 and ,pavan v4 ,smith are ,supreme ,court precedents preventing the ,federal and all ,state governments from marriage-related discrimination against same-sex couples1 ,federal legislation is needed to prevent discrimination against same-sex couples and ,,lgbtq individuals in the private sector2 ,whereas1 on ,may #ag1 #bjai1 the ,house of ,representatives passed the ,equality ,act in a bipartisan vote2 and ,whereas1 on ,may #bj1 #bjai1 the ,senate received the ,equality ,act for consideration and has not acted on the bill3 ,now1 therefore1 be it ,that the ,house of ,representatives-- 7#a7 strongly opposes ,justice ,thomas and ,justice ,alito's ,statement in ,davis v4 ,ermold2 7#b7 acknowledges that same-sex couples have relied and are relying upon the ,supreme ,court precedent in ,united ,states v4 ,windsor1 ,obergefell v4 ,hodges1 and ,pavan v4 ,smith1 and other cases upholding the protections of same-sex couples2 7#c7 recognizes that all ,americans should be treated fairly and equally regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity2 and 7#d7 acknowledges the need for express legislation prohibiting discrimination against ,,lgbtq people4