除了废除《捍卫婚姻法案》之外，《尊重婚姻法案》还将为美国联邦政府建立一种测试某婚姻是否对联邦目的有效的方法，这种法律窘境被称为“法律选择（英语：Choice of law）”。预计联邦法院及行政官员需要确定在一个州有效而在另一个州无效的婚姻是否对联邦目的有效；亦或者在外国有效但并没有得到美国国内每个州都承认的婚姻也是否对联邦目的有效。针对这两个问题，该法案提出了两种测试方法。如果某婚姻在美国某州举行且在该州有效，那该婚姻亦可得到联邦承认；或如果该婚姻在美国境外任何地方举行且在美国国内至少一个州有效，那该婚姻也可得到联邦承认。[23]
^Obergefell v. Hodges(PDF). 美国最高法院. [2022-11-30]. （原始内容存档(PDF)于2019-10-02）. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.
^ 17.017.1David Crary. Faith groups split over bill to protect same-sex marriage. 美联社. 2022-11-17 [2022-11-30]. （原始内容存档于2023-04-06）. Among U.S. faith leaders and denominations, there are sharp differences over the bill advancing in the Senate that would protect same-sex and interracial marriages in federal law... On Tuesday, one of the most prominent conservative-leaning denominations -- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- came out in favor of the legislation. But the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention remain opposed...
^Carl Esbeck. Everything You Need to Know About the Respect for Marriage Act. 今日基督教. 2022-11-17 [2022-11-30]. （原始内容存档于2023-03-07）. Rather than just say no to RMA, a small collective of faith groups moved quickly in the Senate to see if the act could be brought into balance. A few senators from both parties who were keen on doing just that helped. After adding in a measure of religious liberty protections, the Senate substitute of the House bill passed the higher chamber earlier this week, 62–37. Churches, Christian colleges, K-12 religious schools, and faith-based social service providers can take comfort in these boundary lines. All in all, RMA is a modest but good day’s work. It shows that religious liberty champions and LGBT advocates can work together for the common good. It says to the original House bill, “If a bill is about us, it has to be with us.” And it shows that Congress can still legislate, not just be a gaggle of egos who go to Washington to perform but never fix.
^ 23.023.1William Baude. Beyond DOMA: Choice of State Law in Federal Statutes. 斯坦福法律评论（英语：Stanford Law Review） (斯坦福大学). 2012, 64: 1371–1430.使用|accessdate=需要含有|url= (帮助)
^Lynn D. Wardle. Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act: Deciding, Democracy, and the Constitution. Drake Law Review (Drake University（英语：Drake University）). 2009-2010, 58: 951–1003.请检查|date=中的日期值 (帮助); 使用|accessdate=需要含有|url= (帮助)
.jpg)
.svg)
