Aside from the Heritage Foundation's sad face emoji tweet, there are also criticisms of and concerns about the legislation on the left. What are the issues?
I can't argue with the constitutionality objection that you raised in your analysis of the second of the "issues" with RFMA. But I also think your argument missed the mark when you pointed out that there's no federal law requiring states to marry opposite-sex couples. That's also true - but, unlike same-sex marriages, ain't nobody trying to stop opposite-sex couples from getting married, or taking away the legal status of such marriages that exist, either. Yes, RFMA treats both classes of couples equally - but what it needs to do is boost the same-sex couples up so that they're in exactly the same position as opposite-sex couples. In other words, treated equitably. And this law doesn't do that.
I can't argue with the constitutionality objection that you raised in your analysis of the second of the "issues" with RFMA. But I also think your argument missed the mark when you pointed out that there's no federal law requiring states to marry opposite-sex couples. That's also true - but, unlike same-sex marriages, ain't nobody trying to stop opposite-sex couples from getting married, or taking away the legal status of such marriages that exist, either. Yes, RFMA treats both classes of couples equally - but what it needs to do is boost the same-sex couples up so that they're in exactly the same position as opposite-sex couples. In other words, treated equitably. And this law doesn't do that.