If you read most of the headlines and articles coming out of the MSM regarding the piece of federal legislation currently being pushed, they'll sound something like this:

U.S. House poised to pass same-sex marriage bill, showing shift in attitudes

Have a read over the actual text of the bill up for vote.

"SEC. 2." holds no legal weight in any sense. It's not part of the law. Just ramblings to provide "context." So the talk about "same-sex couples" amounts to nothing.

SEC. 3. simply repeals DOMA, which did explicitly define marriage as being

only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

SEC. 4. for the most part simply reiterates the Article IV, Section 1 "full faith and credit clause of the Constitution"; although keep in mind that FF&C only requires that a state recognize certain licenses issued in other states as being valid but doesn't necessarily require a state to transfer any license issued in another state under the laws of that state. For instance, a 16 year old can get a full drivers license in Alaska. If that 16 year old vacations in Illinois where the age requirement for a full license is 18 years old, IL MUST recognize that license as being valid and cannot penalize the 16 year old for driving. However it the 16 year old moves to IL and becomes a domiciled resident of the state, fully under its jurisdiction, IL does NOT have to issue the 16 year old a full drivers license just because they already had one in another state, nor do they have to accept the expired AK license or transfer it into a IL license. The new 16 year old IL resident can apply for a restricted drivers license, like any other 16 year old resident of IL. In the same manner, just because NY might give two dudes a marriage license/certificate, if they move to TX, the laws of the TX apply and the dudes would not meet the criteria as required by the laws of TX. The state doesn't have to issue them a new license, or count the NY one as being applicable. This same principle applies to all sorts of licenses... teachers, practice law or healthcare... granted, this kind of gets at the real issue re: marriages... marriage licenses are BULLSHIT. Marriage is a covenant between man, woman and God. The civil kingdom has no authority to violate the natural or revealed laws... but I digress...

SEC. 5. Unlike in DOMA, this bill never explicility defines marriage. It merely says that the federal government will recognize a valid marriage as being

between 2 individuals and is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into

In other words, this is simply a restatement of the 10th Amendment. The regulation of marriage is a power left to the states. This is what SCOTUS ruled in Windsor when it "struck down" DOMA (although the law still remains, hence why social liberals are pushing to have it repealed and replaced with this RFMA).

SEC. 6. actually does provide substantial protections for religious liberty. Granted, what's the whole point of a law if there can be so many exemptions?

SEC. 7. still bans polygamy, which technically, the federal government cannot do... after all, Windsor said that regulation of marriage is a state matter, not a federal one, and its under this legal premise that this very bill is being justified to replace DOMA.

One can only wonder why Ted Cruz's proposed bill in 2014 wasn't taken as seriously as this effort, considering it essentially would have created the same impact... a restoration of the states' rights to regulate marriage, and the federal government simply recognizing licenses issued by states under their laws.

So what's really going on here?

What proponents want you do believe, is that when/if SCOTUS revisits and reverses the precedent set in Obergefell, this new law (replacing DOMA, which is still technically, the law) will somehow force all states to legalize same-sex "marriage." But it will do no such thing. In 35 states, marriage is currently still BY LAW (their constitution and/or statute) defined as being between only a man and a woman. Those laws were never actually changed. Obergefell merely signaled that SCOTUS would ignore them if plaintiffs challenged them. That's how the judicial process works.

Suppose that Obergefell is overturned. All that means is that if plaintiffs try to challenge those existing state laws, the current SCOTUS won't rule in their favor. Why? Because "same-sex marriage", like abortion, isn't actually a Constitutional right, and the regulation of marriage is a matter left to the states per Windsor and the 10th Amendment. States with judicial activists who attempted to "legalize" a new definition of "marriage" without the action of the state legislature or vote of the people, will no longer have to bend the knee to such tyranny. They won't be required to recognize or honor bullshit licenses issued under duress since Obergefell, or in some states previous state level cases (all of this bullshit started in MA when Romney was governor and under his leadership, he and the legislature cowered like little bitches to the MA court).

The reversal of Roe v. Wade has signaled that the current SCOTUS is keen on restoring states rights and to some degree, cleaning up the damage the prior courts had done for culture war issues over the past several decades. The winds have shifted. If social activists want changes, then they're going to have to start winning hearts and minds to get actual laws written instead of relying on bullshit lawfare.

Of course, millions of NPCs on both sides, will read clickbait headlines like the one linked above, not actually read the text of the bill, and buy into whichever narrative is being pushed towards their predispositions... right now cultural left are praising Congress for "defending same-sex marriage" while those on the cultural right are freaking out that "this will make America Sodom & Gomorrah!" Hate to break it to you, but we're already well past Sodom and Gomorrah by now. But it will be quite entertaining watching leftists go full meltdown in a year or so once they realize that this bill is not only NOT a win for them, but is a poison pill for nationalized same-sex "marriage"