This is a very provocative piece, Jim. It has gotten my brain workin' overtime. A couple thoughts...

Please correct me if I'm wrong. But doesn't the very fact that legislative action was required to insure the legality of same-sex marriages indicate that such unions are not considered equivalent to (or at least not in the same category as ) "traditional" heteronormative marriage "between one man and one woman?"

And, if one reasons through that same lens, doesn't codifying mixed-race marriage through legislation suggest that, in the eyes of Constitutional law, all persons are not, as we've always been taught, created equal?

There's a lot to chew on here.

As unfair as it must seem to those negatively impacted, giving religious institutions license to discriminate must have been a necessary trade off to push the Senate tally over the 60 vote threshold, while providing some assurance that provisions of the bill wouldn't be easily challenged under the First Amendment. Not the ideal outcome for sure. Certainly frustrating. But political compromise never produces a perfect result, after all.