Supporting the designation of Family Month.
- Bill Number
- H.Res. 475
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Families
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-06-04: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-29T18:48:42Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This House Resolution (H. Res. 475) aims to affirm the importance of the traditional nuclear family (defined as a married mother and father raising children) as the foundation of society. It seeks to designate a "Family Month" to encourage national rededication to marriage and family values, while rejecting the annual recognition of Pride Month (which celebrates LGBTQ+ rights and was first proclaimed in June 1999).
Key Provisions
- Recognition of Family Benefits: Affirms that marriage and the nuclear family provide essential support for men, women, children, and society as a whole.
- Rejection of Pride Month: States that the House of Representatives no longer recognizes Pride Month, citing it as conflicting with traditional family values and contributing to displays that "denigrate" the nuclear family.
- Support for Family Month: Endorses designating a month (implied to be June, based on context) to highlight and promote the role of traditional marriage and family, quoting Founding Father John Adams to emphasize moral and religious foundations for governance.
The resolution includes "Whereas" clauses outlining societal concerns, such as high divorce rates, declining marriage and birth rates, policies that discourage marriage, and links between family decline and issues like crime and drug abuse.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This is a non-binding resolution, not a law, so it introduces no enforceable changes. It symbolically shifts the House's stance by withdrawing support for Pride Month proclamations (previously issued by presidents) and promoting Family Month instead. No statutory alterations are made to tax, welfare, or other policies mentioned in the background.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Minimal direct impact, as resolutions guide House proceedings but do not bind executive actions. It may influence future congressional rhetoric or event planning, potentially affecting how federal agencies address family-related programs.
- On Citizens: Could shape public discourse on family values, marriage, and LGBTQ+ issues, possibly encouraging family-focused initiatives while marginalizing Pride Month celebrations. It highlights demographic trends like falling birth rates, which might prompt broader policy discussions on population sustainability.
- On International Relations: Negligible, as this is a domestic symbolic measure with no foreign policy elements.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Families and Traditional Communities: Positive reinforcement for those valuing nuclear families, potentially boosting support for marriage incentives.
- LGBTQ+ Individuals and Advocates: Direct opposition through rejection of Pride Month, which may heighten feelings of exclusion or disparagement for those holding non-traditional views of family.
- General Public and Youth: Addresses trends like delayed marriage and low birth rates, affecting societal norms around relationships, child-rearing, and population growth.
- Congress and Policymakers: Sponsored by 18 House members (mostly Republicans), it reflects partisan priorities and could influence legislative agendas on social issues.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: As a simple resolution, it has no force of law and cannot override presidential proclamations or existing rights protections. It does not amend any statutes but could inspire future bills on family policies.
- Constitutional: Touches on free speech and equal protection (First and Fourteenth Amendments) by critiquing Pride Month, potentially raising debates on government endorsement of specific values versus inclusivity. No direct constitutional challenges are posed.
- Political: Highly partisan and symbolic, it signals a cultural pushback against progressive social recognitions, possibly energizing conservative bases while alienating others. Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, it underscores tensions in education and family policy debates. The resolution's emphasis on "traditional" views may fuel broader discussions on morality, religion, and societal health without resolving underlying policy issues like divorce or welfare incentives.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]
Cosponsors (22)
Rep. Cloud, Michael [R-TX-27], Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1], Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1], Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14], Rep. Rulli, Michael A. [R-OH-6], Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22], Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large], Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8], Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-24], Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8], Rep. McGuire, John J. [R-VA-5], Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-17], Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6], Rep. Gill, Brandon [R-TX-26], Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA-11], Rep. Brecheen, Josh [R-OK-2], Rep. Greene, Marjorie Taylor [R-GA-14], Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5], Rep. Stutzman, Marlin A. [R-IN-3], Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3], Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36], Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA-12]
Recent Actions
- 2025-06-04: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- 2025-06-04: Submitted in House
- 2025-06-04: Submitted in House
Bill Versions
- Supporting the designation of Family Month. — issued 2025-06-04 — PDF (3 pages)