Thanks for the clarification. I still wonder if it matters all that much. You only need one state to allow non-residents to marry on Zoom, and it's a non-issue in practical terms.
States banning same-sex marriage within their borders takes away the dignity and respect of same-sex marriages and couples, so it's quite awful. But they can't actively prosecute people for crossing state lines to marry. They have to provide them the same rights as hetero-married couples, even for things like state benefits and taxes.
It's a daily reminder that you're a second class citizen, that your family isn't really a family worth respecting. It matters a great deal.
Imagine a state prohibiting mixed race marriage, and saying "oh it doesn't really matter" because unlawful mixed race couplings can always drive over the state lines somewhere.
It's spit on your face on one of the most important days of your life.
> because unlawful mixed race couplings can always drive over the state lines somewhere
What I said:
> You only need one state to allow non-residents to marry on Zoom
Driving over state lines is an unreasonable burden to getting married. Don't put words in my mouth please.
I also said:
> banning same-sex marriage...takes away the dignity and respect of same-sex marriages and couples, so it's quite awful
That's why it's important to read a whole comment.
I wish the Respect for Marriage Act actually forced states to legalize same-sex marriage. But we should give thanks that it exists, because the worst states can do now is insult same-sex couples. That's quite a difference compared to abortion.
So your solution for a prejudiced law is the hypothetical possibility that some other state passes some other law, for which you have absolutely no evidence. Also, even if it did - your solution takes absolutely no account of how federalism works. You're proposing that RfMA requires a state to recognise a marriage undertaken in their own jurisdiction, done with the express purpose of sidestepping local law. Is that really how RfMA will shake out? Was that the intent of RfMA? Is that how Mississippi will interpret it? Is that how SCOTUS - now or future - will interpret it? And when they don't? What about a state extending civil or criminal penalties to participating in what it considers a sham marriage, much as states now do for abortion?
> But we should give thanks that it exists, because the worst states can do now is insult same-sex couples.
No, they can prevent same-sex marriages from taking place. That's identical to abortion. Even more effective, as you can be mailed an abortifacient, but you can't be mailed a wedding. Same-sex marriage, post-RfMA, is in the same position as abortion post-Dobbs. I'm meant to be upset about one but 'give thanks' for the other?
Even setting all of the above aside, you're acting like being insulted is just fine. That a person can go through their lives having their own government - a government of the people, supposedly - insult and denigrate their family. And that they should be thankful it's not worse.
It's neither a solution nor a workaround, for the simple reason that it doesn't work either as a matter of law or in practice.
You began this thread with a deeply incorrect assertion about a federal law, then someone corrected you, then you asserted that the correction doesn't really matter, and now you're committing to ever more contorted logic to defend that initial incorrect assertion. I would very respectfully suggest that it's sometimes healthy to admit that a take was just bad. It's ok. We all have 'em. I'm sure you're a great dude. Just take the L.
> It's neither a solution nor a workaround, for the simple reason that it doesn't work either as a matter of law or in practice
What makes you so sure? Are you a lawyer?
I mean you said stuff like
> as you can be mailed an abortifacient, but you can't be mailed a wedding
Which sounds quite incorrect and absurd to me. Mailing, or even e-mailing, marriage licenses is trivially possible. Meanwhile, there are multiple lawsuits and laws trying to prevent the mailing of abortifacients and/or revoking FDA approvals for abortifacients.
I didn't really feel like rebutting the rest of your post, but it was filled with similar falsehoods and speculation presented as fact.
Zoom weddings were allowed during the pandemic. Plenty of states allow non-residents to marry already. What exactly makes it unworkable?
> I would very respectfully suggest that it's sometimes healthy to admit that a take was just bad. It's ok.
I'd love to. You just haven't been very convincing, sorry. Focus on being more informative and helpful, not argumentative and demeaning. Believe it or not, I'm on your side.
No. RMA lets states ban gay marriage. It just requires them to honour other states' gay marriages.