OK, as per Bricker, it is apparently obviously incorrect that a marriage which is valid in one region of the US would automatically be valid in every region of the US.
Let’s apply this logic to divorces.
Let’s say jurisdiction A is [del]next to get The Bomb[/del] quaintly old-fashioned and requires spouses convince a judge that a marriage is not so much on the rocks but shaken, stirred, and washed up on the beach before a someone-screwed(-up) divorce can be granted. Further imagine they have laws against bigamy and The Unnatural And Infamous Crime Against Nature, which is, naturally (not that one… or that one… is that possible… ) fornication, defined as sex outside of marriage. No, that one won’t survive an appeal. Neither will your bank account.
Jurisdiction R is Reno, Nevada. (Ask your grandparents.)
A couple from A takes a direct flight from Niagara Falls to R and slowly they turned their lives around, getting married in R as well. They go back to A, together and separately, with new people to dance cheek-to-cheek-to-cheek… with.
Judge Election Winner and Prosecutor Ura Nother (who is smoothly differentiable from the opponent) decide that just because the divorce is valid in R doesn’t mean it’s worth anything here, where pre-2005 laws are still on the books. Therefore, our inestimable reverse elopers are still married in the eyes of A, which are upon them, and see fit to drag them in to court for doing what they’re doing with people other than each other.
(That is, their public conduct is bigamy because their marriages in R are invalid, as their divorces are invalid, and their private conduct is fornication, because bigamous marriages are nullities and this jurisdiction pretends that Lawrence never messed with Texas.)
So, given that marriage recognition is not a given, are divorces made of more recognizable stuff? Was this more of an issue prior to 1970 and the rise of the no-fault divorce? Will anyone get any of my references? Answers to all these questions… urk