Thanks, I thought it meant both not trans and straight at the same time

I feel like a nuance has been missed here, which is probably my fault.

Legally, there was a distinction between a "union" and "marriage" and that was not right and it is good that they can "marry" now, but even before, most people in casual conversation would consider the people in a union to be married.

If you met 2 people in a union they would almost certainly introduce them selves as husbands or wives.

There was effectively already same sex marriage, except in legalise and some articles didn't make a distinction, for example

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-slovenia-rights-idUSKBN1630U0

You can read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Slovenia

That would imply that any relationship that is without marriage or children is not "normal"

> But it's a sign that lgbtq people can have a normal relationship lawfully.

They already could.
But now, they can have a more equal standing then before.

This is actually not a very big change.

There are still a lot of homophobes and a law will not change that, but also, same sex couples already had almost all the rights of CIS couples, except that it was called a "union" instead of a "marriage" (edit: in legal documents, in casual conversation both are called marriage).

Aside from the symbolic change of using the word "marriage", the only real change is that they can now adopt freely (before they could only adopt children they were related to)