"We need not decide in this case whether the name "marriage" is invariably a core element of the state constitutional right to marry so that the state would violate a couple’s constitutional right even if — perhaps in order to emphasize and clarify that this civil institution is distinct from the religious institution of marriage — the state were to assign a name other than marriage as the official designation of the formal family relationship for all couples.  Under the current statutes, the state has not revised the name of the official family relationship for all couples, but rather has drawn a distinction between the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples (marriage) and that for same-sex couples (domestic partnership)."

They followed this statement with the holding that same sex couples are entitled to the dignity and respect accorded to "officially recognized families" and that the state could not assign a different designation to them.

The very subtle suggestion here is that the legislature could come up with a different name for this institution ---perhaps-- but that it would not pass constitutional muster unless same sex couples had a right to enter into this officially recognized family unit as well.

This appears to be inspired by the way "marriage" is handled in Mexico and France for example: It's a civil institution and the religious ceremony is legally irrelevant. Absolutely irrelevant. In fact, marriage in the church does not accord you legal protections.

insofar as two individuals who have no religious affiliation at all can get married, and never step foot into a church ever, there is already a clear distinction between the process one MUST undertake to be legally married and the extraneous process that some seek to have their ceremony take place in a religious institution or performed by a religious cleric.

the success of the churches to co-opt the term "marriage" as their own term, to have the world somehow buy the erroneous belief that somehow the state is partnering with THEM to make a marriage "legal and binding" is one of the greatest con jobs and hijacking and distorting of the truth that i know of.

the religious who perform legally-binding marriages are doing so EXPLICITLY with this key phrase " by the power vested in me BY THE STATE OF..., i now pronounce you..."  the religious who can and do utter that phrase can and do only utter it if and when the couple has of course obtained the state-sanctioned marriage license and has paid their fee to the sate.

anyone can walk into any religious institution and have some religious perform a 'wedding ceremony" for them.  it is ONLY legal if that couple has obtained the required marriage license, which is ONLY available through the state.

anyone can walk into a court house and pay the fee and have a justice of the peace do their ceremony and have it be legal and never bother to step foot in a church -- and their marriage is legal and binding provided they have paid the feel to the state.

the rate-determining factor for a legally-binding marriage is the state.  period.  all else is dross, all else is extraneous.

we need not find another word for the union; we simply need to make it clear that the church is superfluous and unnecessary for a marriage to be legal and binding.

the church stuff is additional, extra, and most definitely and most correctly NOT A REQUIREMENT ever for a marriage to be legal and binding.