[ElkGroveDan]

Didn't California pass an initiative banning precisely this kind of law?

Yep I spent a year of my life working on it. It passsed by 61.7%.

I believe this is not settled yet. The court battles will continue.

[Rockitz]

Looks like they slipped this one through somehow and your year-long fight was for the sake of semantics alone.

[newzjunkey]

Why? It's not *marriage* and even the president has made a distinction between "civil union" and "marriage" when calling for a Constitutional amendment.

Sour grapes from a bunch of folks who want their bigotry (in the guise of Faith) codified into law and our most sacred public document.

My position remains unaltered: Get government ENTIRELY out of the sacred which means no more "marriage" licenses for anyone. Convert to civil union contracts. Marriage, the sacred tradition, belongs in institutions of FAITH, not government. It's time we recognize the difference and the wall which ought to be between government and faith. Folks can continue to say they're married, just like they do today, if the ceremony is performed by a justice, but government should not be issuing sacramental licenses. It's perverse, unAmerican and quite nearly sacrilegious.