Text: S.2024 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)All Information (Except Text)

There is one version of the bill.

Text available as:

Shown Here:
Placed on Calendar Senate (02/24/2014)

Calendar No. 308

113th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2024


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 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 12, 2014

Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Lee, Mr. Vitter, and Mr. Roberts) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

February 24, 2014

Read the second time and placed on the calendar


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, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) 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:

§ 7. Definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’

“For purposes of 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.”.


Calendar No. 308

113th CONGRESS
     2d Session
S. 2024

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.

February 24, 2014
Read the second time and placed on the calendar