4 Comments

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.

Expand full comment

That wasn’t an argument. It was a lead-in fact to raise the constitutionality objection. The “boosting” you’re discussing almost certainly wouldn’t be constitutionally possible. That’s the point I try to make in the piece -- by referencing how this is unlike DOMA.

Expand full comment

It may not be constitutionally possible (at least under the Roberts Court) - but I continue to believe that it's morally and ethically necessary. The argument I heard from Democrats pushing for the bill, that folks could just go over a state line to get married if their home state wouldn't allow it, does little (or nothing) to help LGBTQ+ couples who are geographically, economically, or otherwise unable to do that. Yeah, sure, a lot of gay folk are concentrated in urban areas that are also accepting of marriage equality. But not all of them are. Hell, even here in Michigan, I'd have to go over the border to Canada or cross two state lines if I needed to find a place to get married. Luckily for me, I can do that if need be. But again, not everybody is so lucky. So RFMA does little or nothing to help those who are disadvantaged as well as being LGBTQ.

Expand full comment

I think there are serious questions whether a federal law requiring states to marry same-sex couples would be constitutional under our Constitution — not simply under the Roberts court. And I am very much aware of the drawbacks of our current constitutional, federalist system, but they aren't LGBTQ-specific problems. I'm not arguing with what you're saying, in terms of your concerns; I just don't think there is a federal law that could address them. This is why constitutional rulings — like Loving and Obergefell — matter.

Expand full comment