Reading Time: 5 minutes
The Marriage Equality Act (HB 1800) passed the Pennsylvania House of Representatives on March 25, 2026, by a vote of 127–72, although support declined slightly. While same-sex marriage has been legal in Pennsylvania since 2014 due to federal court rulings, the bill seeks to formally codify those protections into state law.
Become a Monthly Ministry Partner today.
Currently, marriage is defined as a “civil contract” in Title 23 on Domestic Relations. HB 1800 would replace the delineation of marriage between a man and a woman with “a civil contract between two individuals.”
This is certainly not a new concept nor a new attack on the fundamental godly principle of marriage between one man and one woman. On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled to uphold same-sex marriages nationwide in Obergefell v. Hodges.
An openly gay Pennsylvania Democrat Representative, Malcolm Kenyatta of Philadelphia, is the Main sponsor of HB 1800. Kenyatta has asserted that this bill is not symbolic, but rather, there are legal, practical, and financial ramifications of marriage. He pushed back on Biblically based arguments against same sex marriage, purporting that he was brought up in the church and in faith teachings that “God is love.”
He is quoted as saying on the House floor, “This is what I know for sure: God did not make me to hate me. And he loves every single aspect of me, including the aspect that has made it known that I love a man, and that I want that love recognized the same way that you want it to be recognized.”
101 Democrats and 26 Republicans voted in favor of HB 1800, with 71 Republicans and a single Democrat voting against it. In 2024, the same bill with the same language was passed in the PA House; however, it never reached consideration in the Senate. Four Republicans shifted their previous votes from ‘yes’ to ‘no’: Jamie Barton, Schuylkill/Berks; Kate Klunk, York; Charity Krupa, Fayette; and Jason Oritay, Allegheny/Washington. Republican Mike Jones of York shifted his vote from ‘no’ to ‘yes’.
Charity Krupa, who had previously voted in favor of the bill so as not to offend anyone, has now taken a strong stance that marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman and is the foundation of families.
She went on to say that while the bill is symbolic, as federal law governs the issue, symbolic votes should reflect our values and priorities.
One of IFA’s PA legislative champions, Rep. Stephanie Borowicz, R-Clinton/Union, stated that there was a time when there was bipartisanship in defense of marriage being between a man and a woman just 25 years ago.
“Marriage is a sacred covenant, an institution created by God between a man and a woman, not a civil contract between two individuals. It matters in society. It’s not outdated, and it is necessary. It matters for children,” she said.
Democratic Representative Matt Bradford of Montgomery County commented that he appreciated the civility of Wednesday’s debate. He added that opponents of the bill acknowledged the Supreme Court ruling upholding same-sex marriage, but noted that such decisions are not guaranteed to endure over time. He supported this argument by citing the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn the 50-year federal protection of abortion rights established in Roe v. Wade.
Bradford stated, “Let us today put into law in Pennsylvania what those who plot to undermine those rights would take from us on our highest courts and across the Commonwealth.”
The rewriting of the statute of marriage sends a clear message about how the Commonwealth understands marriage. Marriage has been recognized for centuries as a lifelong union between one man and one woman with the intention of family formation and the raising of children. Many people still recognize that this understanding upholds both natural law and long-standing social wisdom despite the legal definition being changed at the federal level.
Even individuals who believe in evolution and the theory of natural selection, if being honest, cannot deny that same-sex marriage does not further the propagation of societies, birth rates, and populate the earth. Thus, same sex marriage is contradictory to the theory of evolution and is, rather, supportive of devolution.
The Family Research Council (frc.org) has identified ten arguments from social science against same-sex marriage from a paper that was reprinted with permission of the Witherspoon Institute, Princeton, New Jersey, on whose website a version of it first appeared at www.winst.org/index2.html.
This statement is from a book by Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1994) 38. Sara McLanahan, a sociologist at Princeton University, is representative:
If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children’s basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults; it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.
The ten arguments include:
- Children hunger for their biological parents.
- Children need fathers.
- Children need mothers.
- Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.
- Evidence suggests that children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.
- Same sex marriage would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.
- Same sex marriage would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.
- Same sex marriage would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.
- Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender typical roles.
- Women and marriage domesticate men.
These tenants come as no surprise to those who rely on common sense, particularly those who believe that following biblical principles contributes to the development of happy, healthy, and well-adjusted individuals, families, and societies. This is evidenced by periods of religious revival in American history, where there was cultural stability, social order, and national cohesion. Even Richard Dawkins, who identifies as a cultural Christian despite his atheism, has acknowledged the positive influence of Christian heritage on Western societal values, including in an April 1, 2024, interview on Leading Britain’s Conversation.
While the change to Pennsylvania law is symbolic, there is uncertainty as to the protection for those who uphold that marriage is between one man and one woman. Religious adoption agencies, faith-based charities, wedding professionals, religious schools, and institutions may potentially face threats and legal actions without those protections.
May those who uphold godly marriage, both in the public and private sectors, be protected under the mighty hand of God. May the spirit of conviction leading to godly repentance pour out on Pennsylvania legislators and its citizens. May we see a turning away from evil and a turning toward holiness and righteousness. May revival break out turning Pennsylvania and this nation back to the one true and living God.
Share your prayers for the Marriage Equality Act below.
(Photo Credit: Wedding Dreamz on Unsplash)
