It's also been pointed out that "To apply (b) you need to use the definition in (a). Thus the state cannot create or recognize a legal status involving the union of one man and one woman. But it could still recognize other kinds of unions, eg same sex unions and unions involving more than 2 persons." TAKE THAT, conservatives!
Update: Further commentary on the journal post I linked to points out that the fact the bill as worded outlawed ALL marriages was actually known before it went to the ballot and formed a significant part of the opposition to it! WTF?!
In other news, the Kansas Board of Education has officially redefined 'science' so they can push in "Inteliigent" Fucking Design. I could cry.
Closer to home - I'm wondering about the UK's civil partnership that's coming in next month. Is it identical to opposite-sex marriage in terms of the rights it conveys? I wouldn't have a clue where to start looking.
