A very important, albeit confusing, ruling was handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) last summer. In the United States v. Windsor case, the Supreme Court struck down the federal definition of marriage contained in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as it pertains to how federal employees are viewed and for the purposes of federal benefits. However, the Court was silent on the status of same-sex couples who may have obtained a civil marriage in one state, but who live in a state that recognizes only marriages of a man and a woman. The Court did not however find a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage” and did not redefine marriage for the nation.
The Court did defer to how states defined marriage and instructed the federal government to honor the individual state definitions. But while the Windsor decision struck down a key part of DOMA and instructed the federal government to defer to the states regarding their individual definitions, it provided no clear guidance on how the federal government ought to determine marital status for federal laws and benefits.
The result of this vagueness in the Windsor decision is conflicting standards for determining marital status among federal agencies. Some agencies have determined marital status based on the place of celebration. This means if a person is legally married in a state recognizing same-sex “marriage,” but lives in a state that does not, the federal government will honor that marriage. Other agencies have determined marital status by a person’s place of residence.
By recognizing some marriages based on the place of celebration, rather than residence, the government is guilty of “creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State,” something explicitly condemned by the Court (Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2694). This action by the federal government is in direct violation of the ruling of Windsor.
Thankfully, U.S. Representative Randy Weber (R-Texas) has introduced H.R. 3829, the “State Marriage Defense Act of 2014.” This bill serves to clear up the confusion and ensure that each individual state has the ability to define marriage for itself without fear of government intervention. This bill is a necessary response to the current administration’s overreach in applying Windsor. Further, it reinforces the idea that the marriage of one man and one woman is the best environment for children to be reared and raised.
Our friends at the Family Research Council said of this bill:
“This simple legislation provides clarity by requiring the federal government to look to a person’s state of residence (domicile) to determine marital status. Requiring the federal government to look to the state laws of the place where a person actually lives is most deferential to state authority and best comports with the dominant federalism themes of Windsor.
“This legislation provides confidence to the super majority of states that have chosen to define marriage according to the historic understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This legislation would ensure that the federal government won’t engage in efforts ‘to influence or interfere with state sovereign choices about who may be married’ (Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693).”
Take ACTION: Click HERE to ask your U.S. Representative to support and/or co-sponsor H.R. 3829 — the State Marriage Defense Act.
There is a very real opportunity, once and for all, to secure the right for each state to define marriage without fear of the federal government overriding that definition with one of their own. But in order for that to happen people just like you must take action and let their members of Congress know they support the “State Marriage Defense Act of 2014.” Please, take a moment to contact your members of Congress and urge them to support this important piece of legislation.
Background
What does this bill do practically?
It tells the federal government that a person’s legal residence, or domicile, determines marital status for the purposes of implementing federal law. In other words, if state law recognizes a person as married, federal law will recognize them as married; if state law does not recognize a person as married, federal law will not recognize them as married.
What is wrong with letting the federal government determine marital status based on the law of the state where a same-sex marriage ceremony is held?
It disrespects the authority of states to regulate marital relations within their borders, it creates two contradictory marriage regimes within the same state, and it allows the federal government to unduly influence a sovereign state’s policy decisions on marriage. As the Supreme Court said in Windsor, states have the “historic and essential authority” to regulate marital relations within their borders, and the federal government should not be permitted to disrespect this authority by ignoring their marriage laws.
Doesn’t this bill violate the equal protection argument in the Windsor decision?
No. This bill complies with the reasoning in Windsor and is consistent with the guidance the Court did offer on how the federal government should defer to state laws on marriage. The Supreme Court declined to overturn state marriage laws in the 50 states as they were asked to do in the companion case to Windsor, Hollingsworth v. Perry (a case regarding California’s law on marriage, Proposition 8). Instead, the Court deferred to state definitions in determining marital status. This legislation provides clarity to the federal government on how the Windsor ruling should be implemented.
Does this bill contradict traditional definitions of federalism?
No. This bill preserves federalism by: 1) recognizing and respecting the historic authority of states, not the federal government, to define marriage; and 2) ensuring that the federal government will not interfere with a state’s definition of marriage by applying a different federal definition of marriage to residents of that state.
Please, click HERE to to support IFI.
