HRES-1405-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Al Green (D-TX)
What it does
This resolution would express the sense of the House of Representatives that LGBTQIA+ rights are human rights protected by the Constitution, that all citizens should be treated equally regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, and that June should be celebrated as LGBTQIA+ Pride Month. It is a non-binding resolution — it does not create law, appropriate funds, or impose any legal obligations on any person, agency, or government body.
Who benefits
LGBTQIA+ Americans who may gain symbolic recognition and visibility from an official House statement. Advocacy organizations whose policy positions are affirmed in the resolution's "whereas" clauses. Historians and educators who may use the resolution's documented timeline of LGBTQIA+ milestones. Businesses and community groups that organize Pride Month events, who may benefit from the implied federal endorsement.
Who is hurt
No group faces a direct legal or financial burden from this non-binding resolution. Those who hold religious or traditional views opposing the resolution's stated positions may object to the House lending its official voice to these conclusions. Opponents of specific policies referenced in the "whereas" clauses — such as gender-affirming care or transgender military service — may view the resolution's framing as one-sided advocacy using the House's institutional platform.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Congress has a long tradition of passing resolutions recognizing historically significant communities and months, and that this resolution provides an important counterweight to what the bill describes as more than 529 anti-LGBTQIA+ bills introduced in state legislatures in 2026. They contend that formal House recognition affirms the constitutional equality of LGBTQIA+ Americans — a community that, per the resolution, is five times more likely than non-LGBTQIA+ people to be victims of violent hate crimes — and that symbolic recognition carries real value for marginalized groups.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the resolution's "whereas" clauses go well beyond neutral commemoration by taking explicit sides on contested policy debates — including characterizing the Trump administration's actions as "attacks" and endorsing specific legal and medical conclusions about gender identity — making it advocacy dressed as recognition. They contend that Congress should not use non-binding resolutions to declare winners in ongoing cultural and legal disputes, and that the resolution's one-sided framing excludes the perspectives of Americans who hold sincere religious or traditional views on marriage and gender.
Constitutional context
The resolution itself claims that LGBTQIA+ rights "are protected by the Constitution," referencing the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as affirmed in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) for same-sex marriage and Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) for employment discrimination. However, the resolution is non-binding and does not itself create or alter any legal rights, so it does not directly trigger constitutional review. The tension between anti-discrimination protections and First Amendment religious liberty — highlighted in 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023) — remains an active and unresolved area that the resolution's broad equality claims touch upon but do not resolve.
Checks and balances
This resolution expresses the sense of the House only; it does not pass the Senate, require a presidential signature, or carry the force of law, meaning no branch gains enforceable authority and no existing checks on government power are altered.
Historical precedent
The House and Senate have passed similar commemorative resolutions recognizing LGBTQIA+ Pride Month in prior Congresses, including resolutions introduced by Rep. Al Green beginning in 2013, though none have been enacted into binding law.