I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3829 

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 

JANUARY 9, 2014 

Mr. WEBER of Texas (for himself, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. RICE of South Carolina, 

Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. HALL, Mr. CARTER, Mr. YOHO, Mr. 

FLORES, Mr. WOLF, Mr. LATTA, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. PITTENGER, 

Mr. CONAWAY, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. 

BRIDENSTINE, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. PITTS, Mr. POMPEO, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. CULBERSON, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, 

Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. OLSON, and Mr. WEBSTER of Florida) 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 2014’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3829 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) United States v. Windsor reaffirmed that 

16 the ‘‘historic and essential authority to define the 

17 marital relation’’ rests with the States and criticized 

18 Federal actions that ‘‘put a thumb on the scales and 

19 influence a state’s decision as to how to shape its 

20 own marriage laws’’. 

21 (4) Congress recognizes that current actions by 

22 the Federal Government to afford benefits to certain 

23 relationships not recognized as marriages by a per24 son’s State of residence go beyond the Supreme 

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

26 Federal actions create ‘‘two contradictory marriage 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3829 IH

1 regimes within the same State,’’ in direct contradic2 tion of United States v. Windsor. 

3 (5) Actions taken by the Federal Government 

4 to grant recognition of marital status for persons 

5 not recognized as married in their State of domicile 

6 undermine a State’s legitimate authority to define 

7 marriage for its residents. 

8 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE FOR 

9 FEDERAL PURPOSES. 

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

11 to read as follows: 

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

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

14 or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the var15 ious administrative bureaus and agencies of the United 

16 States, as applied with respect to individuals domiciled in 

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

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

19 relationship which that State, territory, or possession does 

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

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

22 that is not recognized as a marriage by that State, terri23 tory, or possession.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS