Supreme Court Considers Dismantling Native Sovereignty in "Haaland v. Brackeen"

The RFMA would repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and would require each state to recognize marriages that are valid in the state where they were performed.

So when California legalizes marrying children and dogs this would require other states to recognize those marriages?

The legislation is intended to protect same-s*x and interracial marriages amid concerns that the Supreme Court could potentially overturn landmark rulings such as 2015's Obergefell vs. Hodges, which effectively legalized same-s*x marriage nationwide.

Previously, marriage laws differed by state, and ceremonies performed in one state were not necessarily considered valid in other states, particularly in the case of same-s*x unions. The Supreme Court found that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional in the 1967 case Loving vs. Virginia.

So with zero indication that the Supreme Court is revisiting Loving vs. Virginia we now realize that this is really about buttsex marriage and not interracial marriage as the article tries to suggest.