Text of US HB 824 (2015)

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 re- ferred 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- 1 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 3 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Marriage De- 4 fense Act of 2015’’. 5 VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:11 Feb 13, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H824.IH H824 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS 2 •HR 824 IH SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 1 Congress finds the following: 2 (1) Congress affirms the States’ legitimate and 3 proper public policy interests in regulating domestic 4 relations and in defining marriage for the residents 5 of their States. 6 (2) Despite striking down section 3 of the De- 7 fense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court ruling in 8 United States v. Windsor did not institute a new 9 Federal definition of marriage that includes same 10 sex marriage. Instead, United States v. Windsor spe- 11 cifically required the Federal Government to defer to 12 ‘‘state sovereign choices about who may be married’’ 13 in determining marital status for Federal purposes. 14 (3) Congress recognizes that current actions by 15 the Federal Government to afford benefits to certain 16 relationships not recognized as marriages by a per- 17 son’s State of residence go beyond the Supreme 18 Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor. These 19 Federal actions create ‘‘two contradictory marriage 20 regimes within the same State,’’ in direct contradic- 21 tion of United States v. Windsor. 22 (4) Actions taken by the Federal Government 23 to grant recognition of marital status for persons 24 not recognized as married in their State of domicile 25 VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:11 Feb 13, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H824.IH H824 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS 3 •HR 824 IH undermine a State’s legitimate authority to define 1 marriage for its residents. 2 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE FOR 3 FEDERAL PURPOSES. 4 Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended 5 to read as follows: 6 ‘‘§ 7. Definition of ‘Marriage’ and ‘Spouse’ 7 ‘‘In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, 8 or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the var- 9 ious administrative bureaus and agencies of the United 10 States, as applied with respect to individuals domiciled in 11 a State or in any other territory or possession of the 12 United States the term ‘marriage’ shall not include any 13 relationship which that State, territory, or possession does 14 not recognize as a marriage, and the term ‘spouse’ shall 15 not include an individual who is a party to a relationship 16 that is not recognized as a marriage by that State, terri- 17 tory, or possession.’’. 18 Æ VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:11 Feb 13, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\H824.IH H824 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS