The U.S. Senate just voted 62-37 to advance a bill that would extend legal same-sex marriage protections across the United States.
The Respect for Marriage Act grew out of fears that, following the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade, the Obergefell v. Hodges decision may also be at risk.
LGBTQ rights activists have been warning that with abortion rights struck down, same-sex marriage protections could be next – prompting legislators to act.
Several months after the House voted in favor of the bill, the Senate has now followed suit.
However, the Respect for Marriage Act still faces several more hurdles before it can become law.
What is the Respect for Marriage Act?
The Respect for Marriage Act would mandate that valid same-sex marriages be recognized as legal in all states. But (and here's the catch) that only applies if the union took place in a state where same-sex marriage is legal.
So what does that mean?
In the event that Obergefell v. Hodges gets overturned, states would theoretically be free to pass their own laws regarding same-sex marriage in their own state.
However, under the Respect for Marriage Act, they would not be able to discriminate or otherwise disregard same-sex unions within their state, so long as the wedding was held in a state that had legalized same-sex marriage.
In other words, a married same-sex couple could live in Mississippi and enjoy all the same legal protections as married straight couples – but they'd have to get married in, say, New York.
In case you were curious, these are the states that still outlaw same-sex marriage at the state level:
- Arkansas
- Georgia
- Louisiana
- Kentucky
- Michigan
- Missouri
- Mississippi
- Nebraska
- North Dakota
- South Dakota
- Texas
- Ohio
- Tennessee
A Win, Or a Compromise?
That depends on who you ask. The Respect for Marriage Act is undoubtedly a step toward progress, supporters say. And they note it would be a massive improvement over the situation pre-Obergefell.
However, LGBTQ+ rights advocates say it still leaves the door open for discrimination against gay couples. For instance, not everyone has the time or resources to travel to another state to get married, they point out.
There has also been significant dispute over how this bill will affect religious organizations, leading lawmakers to change the wording of the legislation in response.
The newest version holds that nonprofit religious groups can't be compelled to take part in same-sex marriages if doing so goes against their beliefs.
But that hasn't stopped some conservative groups from voicing alarms.
“This bill puts a giant target on the back of individuals, nonprofit organizations, adoption agencies, schools, and businesses that hold fast to the truth about marriage,” said Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation.
In order to pass, the bill faces another vote in Senate, as well as the House, before it would go to the White House for signature.
What is your reaction?
49 comments
-
James Riggle-Johnson
It's about time. The bill may not be perfect in all aspects, but it's a start. The only problem is having to go back through both chambers pretty much ensures it's failure. When will people finally realize the LGBTQ community is exactly what God wanted them to be. Are we here to test other believers ability to love each other as God/Jesus/Whoever/Whatever wanted us too? If so, those who hate us, LGBTQ people sure have failed.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
just wait for it....those to come in and rail on about how it's an abomination, blah, blah, blah. the reason it's not going to pass is because of those same people who unfortunately are in public office and believe that their own religious beliefs should be followed and upheld by everyone regardless of religion (or lack thereof).
i think a simple law that allows two consenting adults to be unionized and entitled to all of the benefits presently afforded to 'marriage'. let all people be unionized, let the chrs chns have their word if it's so important to them but they too would still have to be unionized in order to get the legal benefits (choosing not to would be they would be considered unmarried, non-unionized and any children would be from a non-legal union
-
Marcus Sample
What are you from where did you ever study the Bible ?? A dr of what? explicitly that homosexuality is a result of a continual rebellion against God. When people continue in disbelief, the Bible tells us that God “gives them over,” allowing them to experience their sinful desires and the resulting consequences. First Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Homosexuality is immoral and unnatural. It is a disruption of the “natural order” and, more importantly, of God’s view of sexuality.
-
Tom
Clearly Rev. Dr. Father JJ simply isn't Christian and doesn't follow the same beliefs as you.
-
-
David Cox
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. Roman's Chapter 1:18-32
Footnotes
-
-
Daniel Gray
So this law if passed into law (and that is doubtful as they dont have time to get it done before the holiday recess (usually starts right before Thanksgiving) and they get to come back for maybe a week before leaving again for the Christmas Holidays, and then they wont be back until the 15th of January and the new Congress takes office on Jan 21st. So at best you have maybe 2 to 3 weeks to get this done. and with all the other things they want to do before the Democrats lose the House....(and with Sinema seriously thinking of switching to the GOP because of all the attacks she has received from the Democrats) there is a very good chance that the Senate will go GOP if this happens. And the other problem is that means that you cant go from one state and have a same sex marriage and then go to another state and demand that they accept it. Not to mention that if the SCOTUS does decide (and I dont think they will) but if they do decide to hear a challenge to same sex marriages, the people trying to get this issue passed will have to show where under federal law it allows the Government to make this legal or not. So I would not get too excited about this if I were you as you still have many hurdles to overcome before this passes. And the way the laws work, if Congress does not get this passed before they return in January, then they have to start all over as one house passing a law in one year does not allow that law to be held over to be passed in the next year
-
Colleen McAllister
Whatever you believe you can't tell someone who to love. Even if you believe it its a sin; it is no worse than any other sin. We allow divorced people to remarry. This is no different. As long as it is two human beings I see no problem with it.
-
David Cox
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. Roman's Chapter 1:18-32
Footnotes
-
David Cox
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
-
-
Ronaldo
What is marriage in the legal sense? It is nothing more than a contract between two people in which the State has too much say. If a couple is married, and wants to divorce, the State has a lot of control as to how that divorce must proceed, even if that contradicts what the married couple wants. Perhaps we should end marriage as a legal concept and make it entirely contractual, with the State only having enough input to require that the contract must address certain issues, such as how finances, properties, and children are managed during marriage and in case of divorce or death. The State should have no say in how those things are handled, but only that the contract contains clauses dealing with them. In that way, a couple would have to think through their entire marriage before entering into the contract. Such a plan might lead to fewer marriages, but would probably lead to fewer divorces, with virtually none of them going to court. The contract would cover all possible disputes.
-
Toni M Vaughn
Great Proposition I could fully support!
-
-
David A Foreman
Well, it is a step in the right direction, which is better than nothing.
-
Allen Nace
Marriage? Civil Union? Who cares? It's a contract. Why do you need a contract? I thought you loved and trusted each other? Why not just a verbal agreement? A handshake? Fist Bump or a hug?
Why? Because were insecure and want to own the other person. But you said you would love me forever. If it's about money then just place all cash and property in a trust or joint account with rights of survivorship. That's a commitment. Marriage isn't a right nor is civil commitment. We made it up.-
David Cox
It's a covenant between the man and woman honoring God
-
-
Allen Nace
Marriage? Civil Union? Who cares? It's a contract. Why do you need a contract? I thought you loved and trusted each other? Why not just a verbal agreement? A handshake? Fist Bump or a hug?
Why? Because were insecure and want to own the other person. But you said you would love me forever. If it's about money then just place all cash and property in a trust or joint account with rights of survivorship. That's a commitment. Marriage isn't a right nor is civil commitment. We made it up.
-
Pamela Shuttleworth
My wife and I live in Ohio, and got a legal marriage license. In Ohio. Does that mean our marriage is no longer recognized in Ohio?
-
Joann Teague
Me: I am standing with Jesus Chirst Lord and Savior,and let the world go bye. GOD has already written this law in question; " will come to pass, then the Son of God will come"
-
Earl Getz
What is going to happen to the family?!!! What about old fashion people like me who are happily married to the opposite sex?!!! Does that mean that GOD is wrong and that Satan was right?!!! I Will NOT give into such heresies that is and will condemn us to eternal damnation!!! Yes this is going to take place, but we don't have to accept it nor make the devil's job easy for him!!!
-
Tom
Nothing will happen to your marriage and the family will not change either. Just because you don't believe that people of the same-sex can be parents doesn't make it so. The world is not wholly Christian so whether or not you believe there is a God who finds same-sex relationships to be sinful has no impact on those who do not share that belief.
-
David Cox
It does not make it untrue if so.eone believe a lie than the true way....God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life. Even when our body dies our spirits goes to him until the time that he changes us in a twinkling of an eye making our bodies like his glorified body after he was resurrected
-
-
David Cox
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. Roman's Chapter 1:18-32
Footnotes
-
David Cox
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
-
-
Marcella M Russell
Greetings in the precious name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
It is with great honor and privilege to write unto you and share in this concern. I do believe in God unadulterated word that should not be change to suit the purpose of and other. God word says he made them male and female. Man and woman. When he provided a mate for Adam it was Eve not Steve. I am 100% and more if it could be against the same sex marriage and relationship. I love ever person that fines themselves in captive to and by this spirit. I will continue praying for the deliverance of the land that they would follow the ways and guidelines of Christ Jesus.
-
Rev. MichaelRS
Good. Not meaning that I am for or against it, but this is what should have been done in the FIRST place.
The legislators should put themselves on the record by voting for or against this measure and answer, one way or the other, to their constituents for it.
It was a cowardly move to let it sit with the Supreme Court, poeople that are not answerable to any electorate, for so long.
-
Rev. Dr. James Jacob Showers Jr
Thank you for sharing this very important information with us. Like the National End Parkinson's Disease Act, I was hoping that they would have indeed passed this in the previous US Congress 117. May the Almighty Creator, contine to illuminate your path.
-
Allen Nace
Marriage? Civil Union? Who cares? It's a contract. Why do you need a contract? I thought you loved and trusted each other? Why not just a verbal agreement? A handshake? Fist Bump or a hug?
Why? Because were insecure and want to own the other person. But you said you would love me forever. If it's about money then just place all cash and property in a trust or joint account with rights of survivorship. That's a commitment. Marriage isn't a right nor is civil commitment. We made it up.
-
Allen Nace
Marriage? Civil Union? Who cares? It's a contract. Why do you need a contract? I thought you loved and trusted each other? Why not just a verbal agreement? A handshake? Fist Bump or a hug?
Why? Because were insecure and want to own the other person. But you said you would love me forever. If it's about money then just place all cash and property in a trust or joint account with rights of survivorship. That's a commitment. Marriage isn't a right nor is civil commitment. We made it up.
-
Marcus Sample
Believe however you want but one day we will all know the truth about it just like abortion when you vote and support it or not but you are an still an Accessory to but if you are really a Christian and follower of Jesus You know in your heart it is wrong
explicitly that homosexuality is a result of a continual rebellion against God. When people continue in disbelief, the Bible tells us that God “gives them over,” allowing them to experience their sinful desires and the resulting consequences. First Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Homosexuality is immoral and unnatural. It is a disruption of the “natural order” and, more importantly, of God’s view of sexuality.
-
Marcus Sample
I can’t believe some of the post that are made here
-
Tom
I know! All the Christian bigotry is shameful to see.
-
-
Eberhard Bruner
I've always held a belief that true marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't see any deviation within the Bible. Even though I don't condone other kinds of unions, I've also believed other people's private lives should remain private and let God be the judge.
-
Eberhard Bruner
I've always believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. I'm not aware of any other kinds of marriage in the Bible. Though I don't condone unions of other kinds, I've also believed that people's private lives should stay private. Let God be the judge of our choices.
-
Pamela Shuttleworth
My wife and I live in Ohio, and got a legal marriage license. In Ohio. Does that mean our marriage is no longer recognized in Ohio?
-
Clerance Homister
It's just another sign of the end times. When the church embraces the sins of man as law. So many have ignored or falsely interpreted the Bible and word of God. God help us.
-
Pamela Shuttleworth
My wife and I were married in Ohio and have a marriage license that we received in Ohio. When did the law change in Ohio?
-
Russell Clark Schuh
God Created Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve !!! ref: Leviticus 18 and 20.
-
Earl Getz
Romans 1:18-32 GOD of yesterday is still the same God of today as well as His Holy word, and He is not going to change to accommodate us,and our sins!!!!
-
Condy Irvin
Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and to uphold the governments leadership. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to support it but you do have to recognize it. It’s not our call as Christians to judge anyone else and if I perform the ceremony I just did what the government says is legal. Everyone’s lifestyle isn’t and can’t be the same . Personally I believe love is love
-
David Cox
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
-
John D. Partin
Condy Irvin, performing the ceremony you just did is supporting it, which you also just said that we don't have to do. Let someone else perform the ceremony who supports the "marriage" of two men or two women, and remain consistent with your principle of not supporting it, instead of behaving like someone who supports it. We don't owe the government unlimited or unqualified support and upholding because, until the repeal of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court, abortion was legal, and it was our "Caesar" who told us that that was "right", the same as they are telling us now that two gay men or women "getting married is right", but we didn't owe their saying "abortion is right or legal" support or compliance or acceptance because of that. And we don't owe that to their decree that "gay people can be married", either. The "Caesar" in the white racists' South also legalized or just tacitly permitted discrimination against and injustice toward and lynchings of black people, too, and that didn't deserve our support or upholding, either. Nazi Germany was a "Caesar" to its people, too, but that didn't make going along with its atrocities "right" or anything other than something for the world to fight against. The Soviet Union was a "Caesar", but that didn't make all of its repressions, purges, tortures, police state measures and tactics, etc. "right", either. The list goes on and on! Giving just coins to Caesar and giving all of these other things to Caesar are two different things. What if the decree for gay people's being able to get "married" is also repealed, sometime, and what is "right" now becomes actually wrong again, as it never stopped being. You can't call just anything that you want to call a "marriage" an actual marriage or marriage becomes a meaningless term. "Love" can be just a feeling, too, and not a decision, and it is then wrong to treat it the same and accord it all the same rights and respect as a mature decision and commitment or cases of "puppy love" would also be acceptable for two kids or a kid and an adult "getting married" or a pedophile "marrying" his boy or girl sex object or people "marrying" their pets (dogs, horses, etc.) would be "right", too, when they love them. There just isn't the complementarity between two men or two women as there is between a man and a woman. That's not bigotry or unfairness, but just obvious fact. Gay people can call their being with other gay people whatever else they want, if they still insist on being together, except for marriages, since that has already been taken and has always been between a man and a woman.
-
-
Mary Haviland
that is not right nor is it what the majority of what american want, and it will make a curse on our country, i hope it doesnt pass the new house or the new house revrses it if they do.
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Actually, 70% of the country is okay with same-sex-marriage. It's only the far-right-religious sect that's against it and those people are the minority.
-
-
John D. Partin
70% of the country being okay with same-sex marriage and only "a far-right religious sect and minority" being against it doesn't make the 70% right and the minority wrong because right and wrong aren't decided by popularity polls. Most people hundreds of years ago believed that the world was flat, black people should be slaves and were "inferior", and the Sun revolved around the Earth, and other stupid things, and only a minority of people knew better than that. So much for the "majority being right" and "the minority being wrong". God decides what is right and wrong, not people, and has said that homosexuality and so gay marriages are wrong.
-
James Riggle-Johnson
God nor Jesus ever said it was wrong. The word was never used in the bible until 1946. I'm tired of people claiming to know what God said. This has nothing to do with religion it is about equal rights under the law, not under God. If God is pissed about it let him be the one to judge not other humans. I'll take my chances with God because I am exactly what he wanted me to be.
And I should have the same protections under the law that you do, John. I should be able to file joint taxes. My spouse should be able to make decisions for me when I'm sick and not my bigoted family. A pastor shouldn't be making these types of decisions. If the don't want to perform a same-sex cerimony that fine, but they don't have the right to stop someone else from doing it.
-
John D. Partin
James C Riggle, God did say that homosexuality is wrong by saying "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22), but in today's world that would argue with a STOP sign that it really says "GO", straightforward statements against homosexuality, such as the one above, "don't prove anything about what God thinks about homosexuality and really proves that he approves of and loves it" and will be "reinterpreted" (that is, distorted!) until it does or just ignored and minimalized. Jesus Christ went along with the Old Testament teaching that calls homosexuality wrong when he said "not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away until all be fulfilled", and that prohibition is in the law. He didn't have to explicitly come out and say that homosexuality is wrong because he already said so by that statement and saw no need to belabor the obvious that all Jews knew. He didn't explicitly condemn bestiality, either, because that was already well known to be immoral to Jews in the law and so you and other people could say that "he had no problem with people having sex with animals because he never came right out and said that he was against it" and that would be as erroneous as your saying that "he had no problem with homosexuality because he never came right out and said that he was against it". He never mentioned slavery, extortion, kidnapping, genocide, and many other crimes and sins explicitly, either, but it can't be reasonably doubted that the loving Jesus was against all of those things because he wouldn't have been truly loving if he hadn't been. He did speak against them, generally, by saying "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". The argument from silence doesn't fly and is unreasonable. It doesn't matter that the word "homosexuality" was never used in the Bible until 1946 because what it is and involves was described in the Bible in the verse above and other verses, and we don't need murder or any other crime or sin to be explicitly called "murder" or whatever else to know that that is what it is by the evidence of it. Actions speak louder than words! We don't know the mind of God, except what He tells us of it. I'm also tired of self-appointed "spokesmen for God", but only believe in what God-appointed spokesmen for God say, with God's authorization and approval. The human law isn't higher than God's law because genocide under the Nazis was in accord with their humanly conceived and administered laws, but against God's law, just as abortion before the repeal of Roe v. Wade was in accord with merely human law, but against God's law of not killing the unborn. The Soviet Union made purges, repressions, dictatorship, denial of freedom of speech and other human rights, gulags, and overrunning and conquering East European countries in accord with their human laws, but all of that was against God's law of loving your neighbor as yourself and doing unto others as you would have others do unto you. Is there anything at all that you would still have a problem with and protest against, even if it were allowed by man's law, such as pedophiles "marrying" their boy or girl sex objects or the sex slave trade's being made legal or people "marrying" their pets or just anything else that anyone wants to have "legalized"?!! If so, then you are in the same position with them and their wanting their "rights" that you say that I am with you. If not, then you have just no morals whatsoever!! You should have the same protection under laws not just cooked up by some people to suit themselves, regardless of their negative effects on the larger society, and that genuinely benefit all of us as everyone else should, but not just say the protection of laws, no matter what they are, as evidenced in all of these previous examples. Freedom isn't the right to do whatever you and I and everyone else want to do, which is actually license and licentiousness, but is the right to do what we should. Nobody can stop you from filing a joint tax account with anyone else that you want to file it with, even as partners, without marriage with them being necessary. No caretaker or court appointed money or estate manager could ever make any decisions for a person's health care, if that always required their being married to them for them to do that. So, you could have all that you mentioned, anyway, without marriage. The law's saying that two gay men or women can be "married" doesn't make it right anymore than it would if it said that a pedophile and his boy or girl sex object can be "married", and "marriage" can't be whatever anyone wants to say that it is or it becomes a meaningless term. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
-
-
The government should only deal in civil unions, as a marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions should be permissible for any two consenting adults.
Marriage is not only for religious people. It is for everyone.
If civil unions were granted the same legal advantages as marriage, I might agree, but they’re not.
Nah. Too many people who are into polyamory for that to work. Marriage equality means all marriages between consenting adults should be valid.