<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="billres.xsl"?>
<!DOCTYPE bill PUBLIC "-//US Congress//DTDs/bill.dtd//EN" "bill.dtd">
<bill bill-stage="Placed-on-Calendar-Senate" public-private="public"><metadata xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<dublinCore>
<dc:title>113 S2024 PCS: State Marriage Defense Act of 2014</dc:title>
<dc:publisher>U.S. Senate</dc:publisher>
<dc:date>2014-02-12</dc:date>
<dc:format>text/xml</dc:format>
<dc:language>EN</dc:language>
<dc:rights>Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.</dc:rights>
</dublinCore>
</metadata>
<form>
<distribution-code display="yes">II</distribution-code><calendar>Calendar No. 308</calendar><congress>113th CONGRESS</congress><session>2d Session</session><legis-num>S. 2024</legis-num><current-chamber>IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES</current-chamber><action><action-date date="20140212">February 12, 2014</action-date><action-desc><sponsor name-id="S355">Mr. Cruz</sponsor> (for himself, <cosponsor name-id="S346">Mr. Lee</cosponsor>, <cosponsor name-id="S299">Mr. Vitter</cosponsor>, and <cosponsor name-id="S260">Mr. Roberts</cosponsor>) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time</action-desc></action><action><action-date>February 24, 2014</action-date><action-desc>Read the second time and placed on the calendar</action-desc></action><legis-type>A BILL</legis-type><official-title>To amend <external-xref legal-doc="usc-chapter" parsable-cite="usc-chapter/1/1">chapter 1</external-xref> of title 1, United States Code, with regard to the definition of <quote>marriage</quote> and <quote>spouse</quote> for Federal purposes and to ensure respect for State regulation of marriage. </official-title></form><legis-body id="HBF90FBB06B5447AAA5FE1CBD58BCC6BF" style="OLC"><section id="HE654A876A55944F8A3605E526C6A670A" section-type="section-one"><enum>1.</enum><header>Short title</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">This Act may be cited as the <quote><short-title>State Marriage Defense Act of 2014</short-title></quote>.</text></section><section id="HDF40D4FB8B4C41ECBDA71426AEEF1628"><enum>2.</enum><header>Findings</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">Congress finds the following:</text><paragraph id="H1F6CB7D600104D558D960D023E50E741"><enum>(1)</enum><text>Congress affirms the States’ legitimate and proper public policy interests in regulating domestic
			 relations and in defining marriage for the residents of their States.</text></paragraph><paragraph id="HB1DCE102A58A4EB08058F9AB47C5B2D9"><enum>(2)</enum><text>Despite striking down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court ruling in <italic>United States</italic> v. <italic>Windsor</italic>, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) did not institute a new Federal definition of marriage that includes same
			 sex marriage. Instead, <italic>United States</italic> v. <italic>Windsor</italic> specifically required the Federal Government to defer to <quote>state sovereign choices about who may be married</quote> in determining marital status for Federal purposes.</text></paragraph><paragraph id="HE46C3CED92FC42C2BCF43D13F0B395B7"><enum>(3)</enum><text><italic>United States</italic> v. <italic>Windsor</italic> reaffirmed that the <quote>historic and essential authority to define the marital relation</quote> rests with the States and criticized Federal actions that <quote>put a thumb on the scales and influence a state’s decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws</quote>.</text></paragraph><paragraph id="H00796496770843BC844E7C1B5CE617E0"><enum>(4)</enum><text>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 <italic>United States</italic> v. <italic>Windsor</italic>. These Federal actions create <quote>two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State,</quote> in direct contradiction of <italic>United States</italic> v. <italic>Windsor</italic>.</text></paragraph><paragraph id="HC37E3A13D9314169988B0A88AB63567D"><enum>(5)</enum><text>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.</text></paragraph></section><section id="H543F325BBF8A43E885F4D58C59FB644A"><enum>3.</enum><header>Amendment to definition of marriage for Federal purposes</header><text display-inline="no-display-inline"><external-xref legal-doc="usc" parsable-cite="usc/1/7">Section 7</external-xref> of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:</text><quoted-block display-inline="no-display-inline" id="H711DE3CFA5F84E4E9D34DB2CBCEAA2A5" style="USC"><section id="H5CFBFC40C3B145549255D181F3F1E9EE"><enum>7.</enum><header>Definition of <term>marriage</term> and <term>spouse</term></header><text display-inline="no-display-inline">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 <term>marriage</term> shall not include any relationship which that State, territory, or possession does not recognize
			 as a marriage, and the term <term>spouse</term> 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.</text></section><after-quoted-block>.</after-quoted-block></quoted-block></section></legis-body><endorsement><action-date>February 24, 2014</action-date><action-desc>Read the second time and placed on the calendar</action-desc></endorsement></bill>


