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. NEUGE-
BAUER, 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 Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Marriage De-
fense Act of 2014’’. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:38 Jan 10, 2014
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3829.IH
H3829
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 De-
fense 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 spe-
cifically 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 per-
son’s State of residence go beyond the Supreme 
Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor. These 
Federal actions create ‘‘two contradictory marriage 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:38 Jan 10, 2014
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3829.IH
H3829
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
regimes within the same State,’’ in direct contradic-
tion 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: 
‘‘§ 7. Definition of ‘Marriage’ and ‘Spouse’ 
‘‘In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, 
or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the var-
ious 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, terri-
tory, or possession.’’. 
Æ 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:38 Jan 10, 2014
Jkt 039200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\H3829.IH
H3829
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS