I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 824 

To amend chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, with regard to the 

definition of ‘‘marriage’’ and ‘‘spouse’’ for Federal purposes and to 

ensure respect for State regulation of marriage. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 10, 2015 

Mr. WEBER of Texas (for himself, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. 

FINCHER, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. DUNCAN of South 

Carolina, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. DESJARLAIS, 

Mr. POMPEO, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. 

PITTS, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. OLSON, Mr. LATTA, Mr. PALMER, Mr. 

FARENTHOLD, Mr. FLORES, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. 

LAMALFA, and Mr. JONES) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, with 

regard to the definition of ‘‘marriage’’ and ‘‘spouse’’ 

for Federal purposes and to ensure respect for State 

regulation of marriage. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Marriage De5 fense Act of 2015’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 824 IH

1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

2 Congress finds the following: 

3 (1) Congress affirms the States’ legitimate and 

4 proper public policy interests in regulating domestic 

5 relations and in defining marriage for the residents 

6 of their States. 

7 (2) Despite striking down section 3 of the De8 fense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court ruling in 

9 United States v. Windsor did not institute a new 

10 Federal definition of marriage that includes same 

11 sex marriage. Instead, United States v. Windsor spe12 cifically required the Federal Government to defer to 

13 ‘‘state sovereign choices about who may be married’’ 

14 in determining marital status for Federal purposes. 

15 (3) Congress recognizes that current actions by 

16 the Federal Government to afford benefits to certain 

17 relationships not recognized as marriages by a per18 son’s State of residence go beyond the Supreme 

19 Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor. These 

20 Federal actions create ‘‘two contradictory marriage 

21 regimes within the same State,’’ in direct contradic22 tion of United States v. Windsor. 

23 (4) Actions taken by the Federal Government 

24 to grant recognition of marital status for persons 

25 not recognized as married in their State of domicile 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 824 IH

1 undermine a State’s legitimate authority to define 

2 marriage for its residents. 

3 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE FOR 

4 FEDERAL PURPOSES. 

5 Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended 

6 to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘§ 7. Definition of ‘Marriage’ and ‘Spouse’ 

8 ‘‘In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, 

9 or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the var10 ious administrative bureaus and agencies of the United 

11 States, as applied with respect to individuals domiciled in 

12 a State or in any other territory or possession of the 

13 United States the term ‘marriage’ shall not include any 

14 relationship which that State, territory, or possession does 

15 not recognize as a marriage, and the term ‘spouse’ shall 

16 not include an individual who is a party to a relationship 

17 that is not recognized as a marriage by that State, terri18 tory, or possession.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS