Alright was in a hurry. But still I stick to my first idea that it is a missed opportunity to renovate the "marriage institution" and its relation with the state and the law. I still think there was a lot of upside in such a move and for everyone. Right noz people drop the documents at the town hall and fall under a legal binding contract without a vague idea of their rights and obligations in most cases. Just a happy few get the counselling they need to contract fully aware of the various consequences of the choice or the lack of choice they make when contracting. A renovation of the relations with the Churches and the licensed businesses organising celebrations could have been an opportunity to address these issues and avoid the label of a legislation not serving the entire community.
Now u r right about one thing, yes it was intentional, sorry can't help it but I was laughing at the idea that by changing the lay out I would probably see competition instead of opposition to offer gay service marriage . It is just that I know people and if there is funded demand for a service it won't be long before it creates offer and a little bit later competitive offers.

Just wondering would u agree that a state can only decisevely intervene in a Church administration if the Church can intervene at the same height in a state administration whether or not the Church is an established church?