This whole controversy seems to me to miss the point. It should not be within the power of government to define or dilute the notion of marriage. The real way to protect the sanctity of marriage is for government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

When church & state were separated, marriage got stuck on the boundary. At the time, that was probably reasonable: marriage had existed longer than the state, everybody knew more or less what it meant, and it made sense for government to recognize, certify, and take into account that status. But by now there is quite a variety of cohabitation deals between & within the sexes, and it makes no sense for the state to discriminate among them. Where the state has a legitimate interest in making a distinction (e.g., in defining dependence for tax purposes), it can do so without reference to marriage. If a couple or larger group want to stiffen their cohabitation agreement with legal guarantees, let them write a contract (by & with the advice of their church, if they choose) on a par with any other partnership, subject to reasonable public-policy restrictions, and let the courts enforce it according to its terms.

If you are a Christian, it seems to me, then for you it is God who makes a marriage valid, and you should not give a hoot what the state of California says about it, one way or the other.