Don’t look, kids! According to Kansas lawmakers, this is pornography.

Take a good look at the photo just above these words. You should see two men exchanging rings at a same-sex marriage ceremony.

You’re also seeing, according to the Kansas Legislature, the kind of pornographic content that should be walled off from those under age 18 with age-verification software. That was the consequence — intended or not — of passing Senate Bill 394. All 40 state senators voted for the legislation, including 11 Democrats. In the House, nine Democrats joined Republicans to pass the bill, 92-31.

They might have mistaken the vote as an easy call during an election year. Instead, they ended up criminalizing a huge swath of writing about and images of LGBTQ+ people being themselves.

It always pays to read the text.

Max Kautsch, a Lawrence media lawyer, outlined some of the problems.

“The online age-verification bill expressly incorporates the definition of ‘harmful to minors’ that already exists in Kansas statutes, a phrase defined to mean ‘any description, exhibition, presentation or representation, in whatever form, of … acts of … homosexuality,’ ” he told me. “The term ‘homosexuality’ is undefined in the law, but it could include a wide swath of conduct between two persons of the same sex, including kissing, hand-holding, and other activities that would be considered ‘public displays of affection.’ ”

A couple of gentlemen exchanging rings, as shown above, would certainly qualify.

I encourage everyone to study the actual bill. From my perspective, it not only invokes a double standard against the brave Kansas LGBGTQ+ community but actively seeks to chill free expression. The proposed law applies to “any commercial entity” that shares content online, which means it could sweep up individuals trying to make money from a travel blog or small businesses that take wedding photos of same-sex couples. (As a nonprofit, Kansas Reflector appears exempt, which comes as a relief given my columns.)

Kautsch noted: “This clearly amounts to a content-specific regulation targeted at the LGBTQ+ community, and only passes First Amendment muster if the state can articulate a compelling state interest in prohibiting minors from viewing a same-sex couple kissing. The government cannot clear that hurdle, rendering the bill unconstitutional on its face.”

To the credit of House Democrats, a couple took up the subject last week. Rep. Rui Xu, D-Westwood, grilled bill carrier Rep. Susan Humphries, R-Wichita.

“Again, with all these bills, think about the unintended consequences — or intended consequences, I don’t know,” Xu said during floor debate. “But the definitions are much broader than we actually think.”

Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly will now have to decide whether to veto the bill.

Defenders of the legislation might claim that Kansas statute makes exceptions for content based on “the average adult person applying contemporary community standards” and what a “reasonable person” would find valuable. Such exceptions could include works with literary, artistic or scientific merit.

But that opens a loophole big enough to drive a bus full of drag queens through.

What a person in 2024 finds acceptable wouldn’t be what a person in 1924 found acceptable. And what a person in New York City finds acceptable might not be what a person in Mayberry finds acceptable.

These standards allow outraged parents to set themselves up as the vice squad online, going after just about any content they don’t like. And let me tell you: They don’t like gay men. They don’t like lesbian women. They don’t like bisexual people. They don’t like queer people. They certainly don’t like transgender people.

After all, Kansas law declares that gay people living like straight people equals “sexual conduct.” Even if those gay people have all of their clothes on and are walking down the street holding hands. Surprise! You’ve created potential pornography. Given that the age-verification bill applies to commercial websites with 25% or more suspect content, any number of popular social media destinations could be blocked in Kansas.

“The consequence of including homosexuality in the definition makes large social media outlets potentially vulnerable to consumer protection claims based on depictions of LGBTQ+ relationships, and could result in those companies leaving the state entirely,” Kautsch said.

Are legislators ready to bid farewell to Facebook, Twitter and Instagram? Are their constituents?

Obviously not. But as we learned this week, the House can’t even remove a prohibition against same-sex marriage from state law. Rep. Brandon Woodward, D-Lenexa, tried to bring a bill doing so out of committee, but his move failed.

If you can’t write about being gay or show any images of affection in Kansas, why would you want to get married here?

That all came after both chambers passed a bill that not only bans gender-affirming care for those under the age of 18, but a bill that attempts to ban Statehouse demonstrations in favor of trans youths and silences any support from state employees.

Those watching the Kansas Statehouse might reach one unavoidable conclusion: Lawmakers want gay folks to shut up.

They want to silence LGBTQ+ people from advocating for ourselves and our families and friends. They want to banish us from public spaces, both in the hallowed halls of the Statehouse and in online communities. They want gay people and our pesky demands for rights and respect to go away already. Legislators have important tax cuts to dole out and billionaires to pamper.

We’ll see how that works out. I don’t think that lawmakers understand who they’re up against.

A tip of the old Wirestone fedora to the national outlets that had their antennas up for this story. The more eyes the better.

Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.