North Dakota’s Marriage Resolution: A Step Backward

Introduction

The North Dakota House recently introduced House Concurrent Resolution 3013 (HCR 3013), urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the landmark case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

The resolution falsely claims that marriage has always been defined as a union between one man and one woman and argues that the Supreme Court overstepped its constitutional authority.

This resolution is a political stunt aimed at rolling back civil rights, and its legal arguments are deeply flawed. Let’s break it down piece by piece:

Published on: 2.26.2025**

Tags: Civil Rights, LGBTQ+, North Dakota Politics

What Does HCR 3013 Say?

The resolution’s core arguments are as follows:

Obergefell v. Hodges contradicts the U.S. Constitution and the Founding Fathers' intent.
Marriage has always been legally defined as between one man and one woman.
The Supreme Court overstepped by making policy instead of letting states decide.
The decision undermines religious liberty.
Same-sex marriage should not be recognized because it does not lead to biological reproduction.
Justices Kagan and Ginsburg should have recused themselves from the case, which would have led to a different ruling.

Each of these points is either legally unsound, historically inaccurate, or an attempt to roll back fundamental rights.

Rep. Bill Tveit’s Testimony: A Theocratic Argument for Government Overreach

Rep. Bill Tveit (District 33) testified in favor of HCR 3013 with a speech that was more sermon than legal argument. Key claims from his testimony include:

Quoting Genesis as evidence that marriage has always been heterosexual.
Arguing that marriage exists solely for reproduction and that “you can’t have a country without children.”
Citing Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) to claim that heterosexual marriage is a cornerstone of law.
Misinterpreting the Declaration of Independence and Tenth Amendment to justify state bans on same-sex marriage.
Suggesting that Justices Kagan and Ginsburg should have recused themselves, implying that the case was unfairly decided.
Framing the ruling as an attack on “religious liberty.”

This argument relies on religious doctrine, not legal precedent—ignoring constitutional principles and historical realities.

Rebuttal: The Reality of Marriage, Law, and Civil Rights

1. Marriage Has Never Been a Static Institution

HCR 3013 and Rep. Tveit claim that marriage has always been defined as “one man, one woman.” This is historically false:

Ancient Cultures: Polygamy was widely practiced, including by figures in the Old Testament.
Rome & Greece: Same-sex relationships were socially accepted, with some Roman emperors even marrying men.
Medieval & Early Modern Europe: Marriage was often a contractual arrangement for property, not love or reproduction.
U.S. Legal History: Interracial marriage was illegal in many states until Loving v. Virginia (1967), using arguments similar to those against same-sex marriage today.

2. The Supreme Court Had Every Right to Rule in Obergefell

HCR 3013 argues that marriage laws should be left to the states, but this ignores the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that:

States cannot deny fundamental rights, as seen in Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut.
Fundamental rights are not subject to popular vote—otherwise, segregation and bans on interracial marriage would still exist.
Obergefell simply extended existing constitutional protections to same-sex couples.

3. Religious Freedom Is Not Under Attack

Rep. Tveit claims that Obergefell threatens religious liberty. This is false:

No church or religious group is forced to perform same-sex marriages.
Religious freedom does not mean the right to impose religious beliefs on others through law.
The claim that people with “sincerely held beliefs” are being oppressed is a cover for state-sanctioned discrimination.

4. Reproduction Is Not a Requirement for Marriage

Many heterosexual couples do not or cannot have children—should their marriages be invalidated?
Same-sex couples adopt and raise children, providing stable, loving homes.
Marriage is about legal and personal partnership, not just biological reproduction.

5. The Supreme Court Justices Had No Obligation to Recuse Themselves

Rep. Tveit argues that Justices Kagan and Ginsburg should have recused themselves because they supported LGBTQ+ rights. This logic is absurd:

Justices often have personal views on issues before them—that does not disqualify them.
By this standard, any justice with religious opposition to same-sex marriage should have also recused themselves.
This is simply an attempt to delegitimize the ruling because conservatives didn’t like the outcome.

Conclusion

North Dakota faces real challenges—economic development, healthcare access, rural infrastructure. Instead of addressing these issues, some legislators are wasting time attacking people’s marriages.

We must push back by:

Calling out the hypocrisy—conservatives claim to want “small government,” yet they demand government control over marriage.
Defending equal rights—civil liberties are not up for debate.
Focusing on real issues—North Dakotans deserve leadership that works for them, not performative culture wars.

Stay informed. Stay engaged. Fight for equality.

References

Check back often for updates...