Compare US HB 3829 (2014) and US SB 435 (2015)
The introduced text of these two bills, side by side, with the wording they share.
- US HB 3829 (2014) · U.S. Congress · 2014 · Failed
- US SB 435 (2015) · U.S. Congress · 2015 · Failed
309 shared 8-word phrases found in the introduced text of these two bills.
This highlights wording the two bills share in their introduced text. A shared passage may include text that both bills quote from the same existing law, not only language either one drafted. A match shows that the texts overlap; it does not show who drafted a bill, and filing order alone does not show which bill copied which.
| US HB 3829 (2014) | US SB 435 (2015) |
|---|---|
| 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 | 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 |
| 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- 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 | 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- 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 |
| 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 | Congress affirms the States’ legitimate and 1 proper public policy interests in regulating domestic 2 relations and in defining marriage for the residents 3 of their States. 4 (2) Despite striking down section 3 of the De- 5 fense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court ruling in 6 United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) 7 did not institute a new Federal definition of mar- 8 riage that includes same sex marriage. Instead, 9 United States v. Windsor specifically required the 10 Federal Government to defer to ‘‘state sovereign 11 choices about who may be married’’ in determining 12 marital status for Federal purposes |
| Congress recognizes that current actions by 21 the Federal Government to afford benefits to certain 22 relationships not recognized as marriages by a per- 23 son’s State of residence go beyond the Supreme 24 Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor. These 25 Federal actions create ‘‘two contradictory marriage | Congress recognizes that current actions by 14 the Federal Government to afford benefits to certain 15 relationships not recognized as marriages by a per- 16 son’s State of residence go beyond the Supreme 17 Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor. These 18 Federal actions create ‘‘two contradictory marriage |
| regimes within the same State,’’ in direct contradic- 1 tion of United States v. Windsor. 2 (5) Actions taken by the Federal Government 3 to grant recognition of marital status for persons 4 not recognized as married in their State of domicile | regimes within the same State,’’ in direct contradic- 20 tion of United States v. Windsor. 21 (4) Actions taken by the Federal Government 22 to grant recognition of marital status for persons 23 not recognized as married in their State of domicile |
| undermine a State’s legitimate authority to define 6 marriage for its residents. 7 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE FOR 8 FEDERAL PURPOSES. 9 Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended 10 to read as follows: 11 ‘‘§ 7. Definition of ‘Marriage’ and ‘Spouse’ 12 ‘‘In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, 13 or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the var- 14 ious administrative bureaus and agencies of the United 15 States, as applied with respect to individuals domiciled in 16 a State or in any other territory or possession of the 17 United States the term ‘marriage’ shall not include any 18 relationship which that State, territory, or possession does 1… | 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 ‘‘For purposes of determining the meaning of any Act 8 of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation 9 of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the 10 United States, as applied with respect to individuals domi- 11 ciled in a State or in any other territory or possession of 12 the United States, the term ‘marriage’ shall not include 13 any relationship which that State, territory, or possessi… |