```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3829 Introduced in House (IH)]

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.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``State Marriage Defense Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) Congress affirms the States' legitimate and proper 
        public policy interests in regulating domestic relations and in 
        defining marriage for the residents of their States.
            (2) Despite striking down section 3 of the Defense of 
        Marriage Act, the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. 
        Windsor did not institute a new Federal definition of marriage 
        that includes same sex marriage. Instead, United States v. 
        Windsor specifically required the Federal Government to defer 
        to ``state sovereign choices about who may be married'' in 
        determining marital status for Federal purposes.
            (3) United States v. Windsor reaffirmed that the ``historic 
        and essential authority to define the marital relation'' rests 
        with the States and criticized Federal actions that ``put a 
        thumb on the scales and influence a state's decision as to how 
        to shape its own marriage laws''.
            (4) Congress recognizes that current actions by the Federal 
        Government to afford benefits to certain relationships not 
        recognized as marriages by a person's State of residence go 
        beyond the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor. 
        These Federal actions create ``two contradictory marriage 
        regimes within the same State,'' in direct contradiction of 
        United States v. Windsor.
            (5) Actions taken by the Federal Government to grant 
        recognition of marital status for persons not recognized as 
        married in their State of domicile undermine a State's 
        legitimate authority to define marriage for its residents.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE FOR FEDERAL PURPOSES.

    Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as 
follows:
``Sec. 7. Definition of `Marriage' and `Spouse'
    ``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any 
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative 
bureaus and agencies of the United States, as applied with respect to 
individuals domiciled in a State or in any other territory or 
possession of the United States the term `marriage' shall not include 
any relationship which that State, territory, or possession does not 
recognize as a marriage, and the term `spouse' shall not include an 
individual who is a party to a relationship that is not recognized as a 
marriage by that State, territory, or possession.''.
                                 <all>
```