PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 3, 2017
Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act of 2017
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), the Social Security Act (SSAct), and other federal laws (including provisions concerning workers' compensation, retirement benefits, disability and death benefits, insurance, inheritances, or immigration) to replace: (1) references to "wife" or "husband" with references to "spouse"; and (2) references to "husband and wife" or "husband or wife" with references to "married couple" or " married person."
For purposes of federal laws or regulations, "marriage" is defined as a legal union between two people as spouses. The bill eliminates a definition of "spouse" that refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requirements concerning compensation to a surviving wife after the disability or death of a person employed at a military, air, or naval base outside the United States are revised to make surviving spouses eligible for such compensation.
Under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, provisions concerning the amount of leave available to a husband and wife employed by the same employer are revised to apply to a married couple employed by the same employer.
Requirements under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 that make disability and death benefits payable to the wife or widow of a miner are revised to make the benefits payable to the spouse or surviving spouse of a miner.
IRC provisions that require a divorced wife's gross income to include the income of any trust she is entitled to receive that would otherwise be includible in the gross income of her husband, or vice versa, are revised to apply to the gross income of individuals who are divorced from their spouse.
The bill revises title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) of the SSAct to consolidate separate provisions for a wife's insurance benefits and a husband's insurance benefits into a single standard for a spouse's insurance benefits.
Criminal penalties that currently apply to persons who threaten to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon a former President's wife or widow are revised to apply to threats made to a former President's spouse or surviving spouse.
People & committees
Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.98 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.98 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.98 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.98 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.