Essay for you

Federal Law Marriage Definition Essay

Rating: 4.3/5.0 (41 Votes)

Category: Essay


Essay about Against the Federal Marriage Amendment - civil liberties, r

Essay about Against the Federal Marriage Amendment

Against the Federal Marriage Amendment
The word marriage means many things to many different people. To some people marriage is a religious ceremony, and should remain a religious union, without any interaction by the government. For others marriage is a legal contract, which should benefit both parties involved in the marriage. According, most people define marriage as “(1) the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as a husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of the traditional relationship.” Not only has the type of contract marriage is become so controversial, but also the idea of who exactly is allowed to be married is an unresolved issue. Due to so many conflicting views on marriage, some people have wanted the government to define the word marriage, while others feel that it is not in the government’s job description to do so. As a result the Federal government did decide to define it with the proposition of the marriage amendment. What the marriage amendment states is that “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and woman. Neither constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the logical incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.” However despite efforts by the government to solve matters/issues of marriage, more problems in fact come out of this. The marriage amendment should not be in motion because it goes against the very idea of federalism, takes away civil rights, and also takes power away from the courts also.
The Fed.

. middle of paper.

. gets involved, mass amounts of people for and against same sex marriage will be unhappy with whichever way it is ruled.

Carpenter, Dale. “The Federal Marriage Amendment: Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, Anti-
Democratic.” Policy Analysis. Cato Institute. June 2006. [1-11]
"Federal Marriage Amendment." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 11 Dec 2008, 04:17 UTC.
19 Dec 2008.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren. “Loving ET UX. v. Virginia .” Supreme Court Of The United
States. June 1968.

Paul, Ron. “The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea.” Ron Paul Archives, 2004
October: 1.

Click the button above to view the complete essay, speech, term paper, or research paper

Click the button above to view the complete essay, speech, term paper, or research paper

The History of and Issues surrounding the Same-Sex Marriage Debate Essay - Same-sex marriage is one of the leading political topics in the United States today. There is an ongoing dispute pertaining to the legalization of same-sex marriages. America has shifted its head to focusing on supporting same-sex marriage or not. Many are for and against this topic but there has been no settlement for it yet. Homosexuals want to marry for the same reason that heterosexuals have and there should be no reason why they are not allowed to. There is some history behind this topic but there has yet to be a solution. [tags: Same-sex marriage, homosexuality, USA, ]

1898 words
(5.4 pages)

Essay on Gay Marriage Will Harm Children - The Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. Yet, same-sex marriage continues to be a highly debated issue. If same-sex couples are allowed to marry they will hurt heterosexuals. If they are denied this right, then they are hurt. If it is something we have to recognize is that marrying same-sex persons represents itself as a social experiment that never has been experimented, including by societies that fomented the homosexuality (for example the traditional Greeks) as it is explained in Rezza encyclopedia. [tags: Same-Sex Marriage Essays]
. 8 Works Cited

1222 words
(3.5 pages)

Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Essay - The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. Yet, same-sex marriage continues to be a highly debated issue that leaves our society searching for answers. This has been very apparent during elections when politicians, in order to distract or sway conservative voters, all took a side and had an opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage. The debate has been presented on the left as a civil rights debate, equal rights. And on the right, as a morals debate, a referendum on homosexuality (Rauch, J. [tags: Gay Marriage, argumentative, persuasive]
. 6 Works Cited

1273 words
(3.6 pages)

Essay on The Debate Over Gay Marriage - In the last 45 years gay groups have been fighting with mainstream America in order to gain the right to enjoy the same rights as all other Americans. In the last ten years they have been fighting for their right to join in marriage. The individual States are left to determine the laws that govern this situation. Gays and other liberals feel that they have a right to join together in harmony, while the conservative groups in the United States fight this position adamantly. We will look at the arguments for both sides, to determine which side has a strongest argument. [tags: same-sex-marriage, supreme court]
. 3 Works Cited

1496 words
(4.3 pages)

Same Sex Marriage Essay - Then the lord god created man from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:& New Translated Version). Then the lord God said “It is not good for me to be alone, I will make him a helper who will be good for him (Gene: 2:18). So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, he then took out one of the man’s ribs and made a woman. (Gene: 2:24). This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, united as one (Genesis: 2:24). God blessed them and said “be fruitful and multiple.” These are the words of the bible. [tags: morals, religion, marriage, Bible, beliefs]

965 words
(2.8 pages)

Essay about The Same Sex Marriage Debate - The Same Sex Marriage Debate The controversial debate over whether same sex marriage should be legalized has gained a lot of attention in recent years and there are strong arguments for each side of the issue. There are many different factors that must be looked at when considering same-sex marriage. A marriage is not something that is just slapped on a piece of paper to show a couple's love; it involves legal, social, economic, and spiritual issues. Throughout this essay, I intend to focus on all of the issues just mentioned, and how all of these issues are interrelated in some way, shape or form. [tags: Gay Marriage ]
. 5 Works Cited

1640 words
(4.7 pages)

Essay on Gay Marriage Should be Legal - On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in the majority opinion: "The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them." Many conservatives are completely against gay marriage and they have stated that they will fight to have the Supreme Court ruling overturned. People against gay marriages say that it is not natural to be a homosexual. [tags: Same Sex Marriage Essays]
. 5 Works Cited

1364 words
(3.9 pages)

Essay on Gay Marriage Should be Legal - On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry in all 50 US states. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in the majority opinion: "The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them." Many conservatives are completely against gay marriage and they have stated that they will fight to have the Supreme Court ruling overturned. Christian politicians are using religious arguments to establish that homosexuality is an abomination. [tags: Social Issues Gay Marriage Essays]

1537 words
(4.4 pages)

Essay on Gay Marriage - Homosexual Marriage and Equality<p> In the midst of war and economy decline, Americans are being thrown a curveball that may change the way of their culture is forever; the idea of legalizing homosexual marriage. Frankly speaking, this idea was once new, strange, and deemed unnatural and it is now one of the biggest social controversies in our country. However, United States was built on the idea of federalism; the separation of power between federal and state government along with ideas of civil liberties and rights. [tags: Same Sex Marriage Essays]

973 words
(2.8 pages)

Gay Marriage Essay - Gay Marriage There seem to be Specific time in history where certain issues define the culture tension in a society. They become representative of large worldview and clearly emphasize the battle between divergent moral and spiritual perspectives. Homosexual marriage in the United States is one of these issues. In the past five years, there have been various threats and debates about the possibility of legalizing homosexual union. The issue took centre stage in February largely. The U.S Senate quashes a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gays from marrying. [tags: Same-Sex Marriage Essays]

1228 words
(3.5 pages)

Other articles

Motions Filed to Defend Federal Marriage Definition

In an effort to breathe new life into legislation to protect marriage nationwide, the ranking Republican in the House Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith of Texas, and his legal team have filed two motions in defense of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

The motions, filed Tuesday, argue that the act has been left vulnerable to legal challenge because "the [Department of Justice]'s current DOMA defense, which happens to fit the current administration's policy preferences, is really no defense at all."

DOMA, enacted in 1996 under the Clinton administration, defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and the word "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife" for the benefit of federal laws for items such as federal employee benefits. The act also re-establishes states' right to define marriage in their own terms without having to defer to other state rulings.

DOMA was challenged and declared unconstitutional in two lawsuits. In The Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service. Judge Joseph L. Tauro of the Massachusetts District Court issued a ruling denying a USDHHS motion to dismiss the state's lawsuit, proclaiming that DOMA violates the 5th and 10th Amendments. In companion case Gill v. Office of Personnel Management. a similar ruling was given.

Both rulings have since been appealed, but the appeals have been sitting idly for over two months, complained Smith and the attorneys representing him.

Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, further decries how DOMA is being under represented by the DOJ.

In its motion Tuesday, ADF asserted, "The DOJ's practical abdication of its own proven legal arguments, plus its ambivalence on whether it will even appeal, warrants intervention to ensure that widely-supported Congressional legislation like DOMA receives a fair and vigorous defense."

"If the Obama administration won't defend marriage, we are ready and willing to do so," Schowengerdt added.

According to Pacific Justice Institute Chief Counsel Kevin Snider, Smith and ADF will have to demonstrate "an interest in the motion's outcome that is unique" in order for the motions to be successful.

"It is usually to protect interests that are being under represented," he added.

Snider also highlighted how some suggest that the attorney general and DOJ may be ambivalent toward the act because "President Obama has articulated some displeasure in DOMA."

Though opposed to the federal marriage act, the Justice Department filed a motion last year to dismiss a gay couple's lawsuit against DOMA. Obama explained at the time that he had a duty to uphold existing law.

In the same statement, the president also reiterated his commitment to reverse the act. His administration has stated that it "does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal."

Despite the "displeasure," Snider said he hopes that the attorney general will continue to "defend the law fully and vigorously, even the laws they don't believe in."

"[I]t's their job," he reasoned.

Related Stories

Transgender Bathroom Policies Have Led to 21 Attacks on Women: FRC

Several conservative leaders and organizations are speaking out against the "devastating blow to religious liberty" after the Washington Supreme Court ruled that Christian grandma florist Barronelle Stutzman violated an anti-discrimination law for refusing to provide services for a same-sex wedding.

  • Kathie Lee Gifford will join Dr. Oz on the latest episode of "Faithful Fridays" to discuss the role her faith played in helping her overcome the grief of husband's death.

  • The American Center for Law and Justice has asked the United Nations Human Rights Council why it continues to be silent and refuses to formally identify Christians and other religious minorities as victims of genocide at the hands of the Islamic State terror group, despite well-documented evidence.

  • The fact that exit polls show that 81 percent of evangelical voters and a majority of white Christians voted for President Donald Trump in the 2016 election represents a "crisis in the Church" and shows that the Church is more racially divided than ever, Rev. Jim Wallis has warned.

  • Far too many Christians are becoming desensitized to the blatant paganism that's being promoted in culture, as evidenced by Beyoncé's display at the Grammys Sunday where she dressed and performed as Roman, Hindu, and African goddesses.

    © 2017 The Christian Post Company

  • Report on Federal Regulation of Marriage a Study in Contradictions

    Federal Regulation of Marriage: a Study in Contradictions

    Federal Regulation of Marriage: A Study in Contradictions
    With laws for and against same-sex marriage becoming so prevalent on the national scene in recent years, there has been much confusion, and on the part of congress, dictation on morals as to what constitutes “marriage” for purposes of federal law. Many state and federal regulations rely on a State definition of marriage for purposes of conferring rights and benefits to citizens. As promulgated, these regulations have a long-standing constitutional and jurisprudential basis. Such regulations were enacted to protect the spouses of accident victims, veterans, employees, and retirees. Congress, however, in enacting a federal definition of marriage in contradiction of these regulations, has created an ambiguity that threatens the validity of regulations that define marriage or spouse. Because the regulations, as they exist, serve to protect a greater number of citizens, any contradictions should be resolved in favor of the language as it exists and against any attempts to constrain the definitions of marriage or spouse.
    There are several examples in the Code of Federal Regulations where state law is used to define marriage. In applying Treasury Regulations, “whether… an individual is married is… to be determined by the law of the State of the marital domicile” (Dunn v. Commissioner, 1978, p. 366). “Spouse” is defined pursuant to state law for purposes of federal employee benefits (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 5, section 843.102). Social Security regulations with respect to survivor and death benefits state that an applicant “is the wife, husband widow or widower… if the courts of the State… [of which the deceased was a resident]… would find such an applicant and such insured individual were validly married” (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, section 416(h)(1)(A)(i)). For the purposes of the Department of Veterans of Affairs, marriage “means a marriage valid under the law of the place.

    Express your owns thoughts and ideas on this essay by writing a grade and/or critique.

    Sign Up or Login to your account to leave your opinion on this Essay.

    Similar Essays
    1. Federalism And Gay Marriage every year in courts from city, state and even federal regarding legalities of gay marriages and if the federal government would step in and govern this issue, a lot.
    2. The Effect Of Decreased Federal Regulation On Americans. in News." FAIR. Jul. 2001. 5. Lynch, Tim. "New Study Undermines Bush Anti-Regulation Doctrine."Greenwatch Today". 2004. Bush Greenwatch. 2006. 6. Media Mouse.
    3. Federal Regulation Of Organic Farming has been necessary for the federal government to step in and regulate the previously self regulated industry. Initially, regulation of this industry was implemented.
    4. Lds Marriage Case Study 4 a baby (two years from the day of marriage). She struggles with the idea of being. potential. In fact, many scientific studies has been about relation between.
    5. Challenges And Niche all federal regulations that are in place. This contradicts the governments. accessed on 30 April 2011 Urban Outfitters Continuing Case Study: Creating.

    Copyright © 2017.

    DOMA Challenge Tests Federal Definition Of Marriage: NPR

    DOMA Challenge Tests Federal Definition Of Marriage

    The House Republican leadership has stepped in to defend the statute, hiring former Bush administration Solicitor General Paul Clement to do the job. About half of the oral argument will focus on whether Congress has legal standing to defend the law in court. And because the administration agrees with Congress that it does have standing, the Supreme Court has appointed a private lawyer to argue that Congress does not.

    Those defending DOMA have been strangely unwilling to make their arguments outside of the court. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, declined to be interviewed for this article, as did Clement and leading House members who voted for the law. Even Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who filed a friend of the court brief supporting DOMA, was unavailable for an interview. The primary sponsor of the bill, former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga. now retired, has changed his mind and now opposes the law. President Clinton, who signed DOMA into law, has also reversed course.

    Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, however, is an outspoken DOMA supporter. Equal protection, he says, means "equal protection for a man and woman to be able to get married to each other," because "that's been the definition of marriage for thousands of years."

    And as for Edie Windsor: She simply "wasn't married in the eyes of the United States Congress, according to DOMA." Under our system of federal and state shared power, King says, states are free to recognize same-sex marriages, and the federal government is free to not to recognize those marriages.

    Brigham Young University Law School professor Lynn Wardle puts it this way: "Since the Constitution was drafted in 1787, it's been the federal government that has had the authority to define who is eligible for federal programs and benefits."

    Wardle, who testified in support of DOMA in 1996, notes that at the time, Hawaii seemed poised to become the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, "and Congress said nope, there's a very clear consensus on what marriage is. It's the union of a man and a woman."

    The House leadership, in its legal brief, makes similar arguments in support of DOMA. In the face of state and public debate over same-sex marriage rights, the brief says, the federal government had good reason to "retain the traditional definition" of marriage as "the uniform rule for federal-law purposes."

    Like proponents of California's ban on same-sex marriage, the brief also highlights the reproductive ability of opposite-sex couples, arguing that "the core purpose and defining characteristic of the institution of marriage always has been the creation of a social structure to deal with the inherently procreative nature of the male-female relationship." This inherent difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples is just one of the rational justifications for their unequal treatment under federal law, according to the brief.

    Federal Defense Of Marriage Act

    What To Know About the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

    The Defense of Marriage Act, sometimes shortened to DOMA, is a federal law in the United States which was signed into the legislature by former President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. In the Federal Defense of Marriage Act 1996, the federal government explicitly defines marriage to be a legal union between a man and a woman.

    Under the Federal Defense of Marriage Act 1996, no American state or political subdivision within the United States is required to recognize a marriage within a same-sex relationship that was set in another state. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act 1996 passed both the House and Senate with a large majority. Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage act prevents the federal government from acknowledging the legal validity of same-sex marriages. However, this section has been found to be unconstitutional in a California bankruptcy case, two Massachusetts cases, and by President Obama’s administration. These rulings are still under appeal.

    Social Background of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act 1996

    When the Federal Defense of Marriage Act 1996 was first passed, it was thought that Hawaii and potentially other states would be quick to legalize same-sex marriage, either by judicial interpretation or legislation of either the federal or state constitution. Challengers of such recognition worried that other states would then be forced to recognize the validity of these marriages under the authority of the Full Faith & Credit Clause found in the United States Constitution.

    Section 2 of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act 1996

    According to the Report from the House of Representatives on the Federal Defense of Marriage Act 1996, Section 2, which are the Powers reserved for the states, of the act was written with the intention of protecting the right of the individual States to create their own public policies in terms of the legal recognition of gay marriages and same sex unions without having any federal constitutional implications that could possibly modify the recognition by one State of the right for same sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.

    This section explicitly provides that no individual State will be required to agree to full faith and to recognize to a marriage license which was issued by another State if it is regarding to a relationship between homosexual couples. This basically means that the law upholds the power of each individual state to make the state’s own decision regarding whether the state will reject or accept any same-sex marriages that are created in other states or jurisdictions.

    Section 3 of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act 1996

    Section 3, or the definition of marriage, of the law is the portion of the act that legally defines a marriage in terms of federal uses as the union explicitly of a woman and a man. However, this portion of the act was deemed unconstitutional in July 2010 by a federal district court judge. This decision was then appealed three months later. On February 23, 2011, the Attorney General Eric Holder publically announced that the United States Justice Department would no longer act as the legal defense of the Section 3 of the Federal Defense Marriage Act at the instruction of President Barack Obama, who had decided that Section 3 of the Federal Defense Marriage act was unconstitutional.

    Despite this, Congress may possibly choose to defend the law in a courtroom instead of through the administration. March 4, 2011, John Boehner (the Speaker of the House) announced that he was taking action in order to defend Section 3 of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act 1996 on behalf of the United States Department of Justice. Furthermore, the administration wishes to enforce the Federal Defense of Marriage Act 1996 until and unless Congress legally repeals Section 3 of the act or the judicial branch places a definitive verdict against the constitutionality of the section.

    Enactment of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act 1996

    In the 1993 Hawaiian Supreme Court case Baehr v. Miike, the court ruled that the state of Hawaii must show a strong and compelling interest behind prohibiting same-sex marriage within the state. This legal action prompted great concern among various opponents of same-sex marriage regarding the possibility that same-sex marriage could become legal in Hawaii resulting in other states having to recognize those marriages as valid. The enactment of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act 1996 was done in order to free individual states from any sort of obligation in recognizing marriages of homosexual couples in other states.

    The Defense of Marriage Act 1996 was authored by Georgia Representative Bob Barr, who was at the time a Republican representative. He then introduced the bill to the House on May 7, 1996. The Congressional sponsors of the bill stated that the bill worked to amend the United States Code in order to explicitly state what has been implied and understood for over 200 years under federal law. This fact was that a marriage is only the legal union of a woman and man as wife and husband, and that a spouse is a member of the opposite sex.

    The bill’s legislative history declares authority to endorse the law under Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to define the full effect of the credit and full faith each state must give to other states' acts. Supporters made clear their intent to regularize heterosexual marriage specifically on as federal level, while allowing other states to decide individually whether to acknowledge same-sex unions granted from other states.

    The Republican Party platform in 1996 endorsed the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, making references only to Section 2 of the Act. They felt that anti-discrimination laws should not be distorted so heavily in order to cover sexual preference. Furthermore, the platform also endorsed the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and its ability to prevent states from being legally forced to recognize homosexual unions. The platform of the Democratic Party in 1996 did not mention the Defense of Marriage Act or marriage in general.

    In an interview in June 1996 in The Advocate, the gay and lesbian magazine, Former President Clinton said that he was opposed to same-sex marriage as he felt that marriage was an institution reserved for the union of a woman and a man. He did not revisit or mention the stance in his autobiography written in 2004. As time progressed, former President Clinton's personal views regarding same-sex marriage slowly shifted. In July 2009, Clinton said that he placed his support in individuals doing what they feel they want to do and that others should not stop gay marriage because of it. He also showed support for gay marriage but felt it should not be a federal question, but rather all states should be in support of it.

    The bill for the Federal Defense of Marriage Act moved through Congress on a fast track and found overwhelming approval in both the House and Senate, which were both Republican-controlled. The bill passed with a vote in the Senate of 85–14 and a vote in the House of Representatives of 342–67. On September 21, 1996, the act was signed into legislation by President Bill Clinton.

    Recognition of Gay Marriage In Response of the Defense of Marriage Act

    Since the enactment of Federal Defense of Marriage Act 1996, many states have allotted licenses for same-sex marriages. These states include the District of Columbia, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, California, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont.

    Maryland and New Mexico recognize the homosexual marriages set from other jurisdictions. California, Illinois, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Nevada also recognize such a marriage as a domestic partnership or civil union.

    Certain states recognize civil unions in order to represent homosexual relationships, and make these relationships equivalent to marriage. Other states such as Nevada have domestic partnerships in order to grant same-sex relationships some legal status and benefits that the state normally places on married couples.

    A majority of the states have very restricted recognition of marriage limited to one woman to one man. Up until April 2009, 29 states in the United States have created constitutional amendments that define marriage as the union of a woman and a man, while another 13 states have set up statutory bans, that approved a gay marriage law that was first repealed by referendum in the general elections of 2009.

    Later Politics of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act 1996

    The Republican Party platform in 2000 endorsed the Defense of Marriage Act in overall terms but presented a concern about potential judicial action. The party continued to hold the stance that federal law should not force other states to recognize other arrangements beside one woman and one man as marriages. The same year, the Democratic Party platform did not mention the Defense of Marriage Act or marriage within this context.

    In 2008, Congressman Barr publicly apologized for sponsoring the Defense of Marriage Act and stated that the law should be repealed on the basis that the act violated the principles of federalism.

    Full Text of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act 1996

    [[Page 110 STAT. 2419]]

    Public Law 104-199

    To define and protect the institution of marriage. <<NOTE: Sept. 21,

    1996 - [H.R. 3396]>>

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

    United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Defense of

    SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 1 USC 1 note.>> SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defense of Marriage Act''.


    (a) In General.--Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is

    amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

    ``Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect

    ``No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian

    tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or

    judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe

    respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is

    treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,

    possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such

    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of

    chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting

    after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:

    ``1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect


    (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is

    amended by adding at the end the following:

    ``Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

    ``In 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, the word `marriage' means

    only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,

    and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is

    a husband or a wife.''.

    [[Page 110 STAT. 2420]]

    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of

    chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after

    the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

    ``7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.''.

    Approved September 21, 1996.


    HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104-664 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):

    July 11, 12, considered and passed House.

    Sept. 10, considered and passed Senate.

    There is no confidential attorney-client relationship formed by using website and information provided on this site is not legal advice. For legal advice, please contact your attorney. Attorneys listed on this website are not referred or endorsed by this website. By using you agree to Terms Of Use.
    Copyright © 2017 | All rights reserved

    Loading, Please Wait!

    This may take a second or two.