North Dakota Legislature urges United States Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and redefine marriage

Original title: A concurrent resolution urging the United States Supreme Court to restore the definition of marriage to a union between one man and one woman.

Last action · March 13, 2025: Second reading, failed to adoptSponsors: Bill Tveit and 11 others

Bill progressHistory & official text ↓

Introduced

Committee

Floor Vote

Passed

Law

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

What This Bill Proposed

The North Dakota Legislative Assembly formally rejects the United States Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, urging the court to restore the definition of marriage exclusively as a union between one man and one woman and return marriage law authority to the states.

Why it matters

The measure expresses an official state legislative position urging a change in federal constitutional law regarding marriage licensing and state authority, though it carries no direct funding or binding domestic enforcement changes.

Who It Would Have Affected

Groups the bill's text would have affected, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.

Directly affected

North Dakota residents and voters

The resolution addresses their civil liberties and state constitutional authority regarding marriage licensing.

Key Facts

You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main goal of House Concurrent Resolution 3013?

The resolution formally asks the United States Supreme Court to overturn the Obergefell v. Hodges decision and return the authority to define and regulate marriage to individual states.

Does this resolution change North Dakota state laws or require immediate domestic policy changes?

No, it is a expressing the opinion and formal stance of the Legislative Assembly, and directs the Secretary of State to forward the text to the Supreme Court.

What else do you want to know?

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Follow the record

Votes, people, money & the original source

Where This Stands

This resolution did not become law - Failed in the Senate.

Procedural history

11 actions

Mar 13, 2025Senate
Second reading, failed to adopt
Mar 12, 2025SenateCommittee
Reported back without recommendation 6 1 0
Mar 12, 2025SenateCommittee
Committee Hearing 03:15
Mar 7, 2025SenateIntroduced
Introduced, first reading, referred Judiciary Committee
Feb 25, 2025Senate
Received from House
Feb 24, 2025HouseFloor
Second reading, adopted yeas 52 nays 40

Show 5 earlier actions

Feb 20, 2025House
Laid over two legislative days
Feb 19, 2025House
Laid over one legislative day
Feb 18, 2025HouseCommittee
Reported back, do pass, place on calendar 11 1 2
Feb 17, 2025HouseCommittee
Committee Hearing 10:00
Jan 29, 2025HouseIntroduced
Introduced, first reading, referred Judiciary Committee

Version history

Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.

View official text →