There’s a hidden nugget in the “respect for marriage bill”. It basically says that churches won’t be forced to perform interracial marriages or to do anything that would condone them. Anyhow, at least it stays to the point that it’s about getting a marriage recognized in a foreign state that doesn’t recognize their marriage as a marriage in their state based on gender or race.
It’s the only way it’s legal since more than 40 states banned inter-racial marriage in the past, and those were mostly temporarily legalized based on a principle which has now been overturned by the Supreme Court, in the Roe v Wade overturn.
Seems anyways they keep whittling away at the rights of States’ sovereign state legislatures, contrary to what the Constitution had said would have been guaranteed for the freedom of the states.
For the Constitution to be followed this law will be nullified as unconstitutional, and the Feds pay back any damages to those who were simply following their sovereign state laws.
If the states will have these Constitutional freedoms to pass their own state laws (protecting their citizens in these great matters effecting their whole populations’ core ideologies, like protection from suicidal sodomite practices) then the “true freedom”, (not forced foreign practices), would be found by allowing the violators to remain in states that fully celebrate what those states have banned. Who would want to be in a state that banned their practices anyway?