Bills
| 3.23.22

Should "Marriage" be Defined at the State Level — Without Federal Interference? (S. 435)

Do you support or oppose this bill?

What is S. 435?

(Updated March 15, 2018)

This bill would give states and territories the authority to have their own definition of marriage that is independent of federal laws.

The federal government would have to defer to state/territory marriage law when applying the definition of marriage for all rulings, regulations, or interpretations that would be put forward by federal agencies. This would include the provision of benefits under federal law.

Argument in favor

States are the best level of government at which to define marriage — the federal government should not be able to force a definition of marriage on all 50 states. This bill gives the choice back to states and the people who live in them.

Argument opposed

There needs to be a federal definition of marriage because states can’t be trusted to enact non-discriminatory marriage laws. This bill is a less than subtle way to step on same-sex couples' rights to have their marriage recognized anywhere in the country.

Impact

Couples who want to get married, people who want their states’ definition of marriage to be different than what it is, or want a federal definition of marriage, or would suffer a change in legal status because of this law, state legislatures, federal agencies, federal benefits.

Cost of S. 435

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In-Depth: An article run by CNN found that this legislation would negate the marriages of same-sex couples who were married in a state that allows same-sex marriage, but reside in a state where those marriages are illegal. They would also, under this bill become ineligible for the federal benefits that they otherwise enjoy. 

Under current law, federal agencies use a “state of celebration” rule rather than a “state of residence” rule when interpreting   to give couples their federal benefits — meaning that married same-sex couples have their marriages recognized wherever they live so long as they were married in a state that permits same-sex marriage.

A nearly identical version of the State Marriage Defense Act was introduced in February 2014, but it failed to receive a vote in the Senate before the conclusion of the 113th Congress.


Of Note: This legislation has its roots in the 2013 Supreme Court ruling in the case — the official end to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that had previously allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.

A 5-4 majority in the Court ruled that the federal government was prevented from treating state-sanctioned heterosexual marriages as different from state-sanctioned same-sex marriages because the differentiation “demean[ed] the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.” The majority opinion further stated that:

“the federal statute [DOMA] is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.”

There are competing views of this majority’s opinion: one which believes it to be an affirmation of federalism and that “the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation”, and another that believes DOMA “violate[d] basic due process and equal protection principles.”


Media:


Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user gdominici)