The bill begins with an enormous number of definitions, most of which simply pass the buck to other federal statutes for their content. One of those defined in the section, however, is that of "family," and the definition as given should give distributists serious concern. "The term 'family,'" the bill tells us, "means an individual and includes the individual’s dependents."more at The Distributist Review
Surely, this is a curious definition; a family normally involves, at the very least, more than one person. A quick search of a dictionary reveals a number of definitions, all of which involve a group of people of some kind. This one, however, states that a family is "an individual." Certainly, it also includes his "dependents," but doesn't have to. What does this mean for distributists?
First, this definition is perfectly open to, and is conducive of, definitions of the family that distributists should adamantly oppose. By refusing to cite to a married couple, man and woman, it opens the door for literally any type of "family" that our increasingly degenerate society decides to recognize. Cohabiting couples; homosexual couples, whether "married" or not; all of these easily fit into the definition of family as described here, provided that one of them is a "dependent." The definition of "dependent" doesn't help any, either; it is left entirely up to "the Commissioner," the only proviso being that it "includes a spouse." Note that here, too, there is no mention of a spouse of the opposite sex, a pretty glaring omission given the enormous controversy currently ongoing about the subject.
An older article but I just ran across this tidbit.