[dalanmiller]

> but not the ceremony of marriage.

Be careful because I think by ceremony you are painting a picture that he isn't allowing gay weddings to happen, Prop 8 unless I"m mistaken was all about who can get married in the eyes of the state, no?

[itafroma]

The full text of the proposition was:

> Section I. Title

> This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

> Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

> Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

The wording was enough to be declared unconstitutional due to its violation of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. I don't think there's been any legal precedent set beyond that, but it's conceivably broad enough to apply to any jurisdiction or any organization operating within the state, not just the state government.

[jnbiche]

>Prop 8 unless I"m mistaken was all about who can get married in the eyes of the state, no?

And that's exactly the problem. State governments are sanctioning what are really civil unions but calling them marriages. The obvious answer is that everyone should have civil unions through their state government, and marriage should be reserved for one's church (if one so wishes and has a church -- I don't).

However, since that's not happening, it's clear to me that we have to recognize state marriages as de facto civil unions, and as such support everyone's right to participate. Since (to me) everyone should have the right

But the easy answer would have been to move "marriage" as such to the care of churches, leaving only civil unions in the care of state governments.

[dalanmiller]

Yup, I think I totally agree. It seems there's an issue with wording and that the state is marketing something it doesn't actually do ('wed' people), where they actually just provide a paper that pronounces legal union.