1. United States
2. S.C.
3. Letter

House Concurrent Resolution 5501 rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional supremacy and threatens the legal stability of thousands of South Carolinians. The resolution argues that court rulings are not laws, yet the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Clause 2, establishes that the Constitution and the laws of the United States are the supreme law of the land. Since Marbury v. Madison (1803), it has been the settled duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. When the Supreme Court interprets the Fourteenth Amendment to include the right of same-sex couples to marry, that interpretation becomes binding on the states, regardless of prior state constitutional amendments. The resolution’s reliance on "natural law" to define marriage invites the government to codify specific theological doctrines into civil law. This move conflicts with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prevents the state from using its power to enforce religious definitions of civil institutions. Civil marriage is a legal contract providing over 1,000 federal protections; stripping these rights would result in immediate and irreparable harm to South Carolina families. I strongly oppose this measure as it seeks to invalidate the legal status of my own neighbors and colleagues, undermining the dignity and security that all citizens deserve under the law. Furthermore, the resolution fails to account for the Respect for Marriage Act (P.L. 117-228), signed into federal law in 2022. Even if Obergefell were vacated, this federal statute requires South Carolina to recognize valid marriages performed in other states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. H. 5501 would therefore not restore a previous order but would instead initiate a period of profound legal uncertainty and costly, taxpayer-funded litigation. True liberty involves the protection of individual rights from state overreach. By seeking to nullify the vested legal status of its own citizens, the General Assembly would be engaging in the very governmental overreach it claims to oppose. The committee should report unfavorably on this resolution to protect the constitutional integrity of the state and the rights of all residents.