As we all know, voters in California have just voted to add what is claimed to be a ban on gay marriage to the Californian constitution.
Fortunately whoever wrote the clause to be added to the constitution is only semi-literate. The clause as reported in the press is:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Note that the 'only' is next to and therefore qualifies 'marriage'. There is no such qualification next to the phrase 'a man and a woman'.
Presumably what the author meant to say was "The only marriage recognized in California is between a man and a woman". However what is written does not say that.
What it does say is that the only contract recognized in California between a man and a woman is marriage. Thus an employment contract between a man and a woman is not valid or recognized, nor an adoption, nor a tenancy, nor any other business contract.
It does not say anything about any kind of contract, marriage, tenancy, etc. between two men or two women.
California has abolished all other business and personal contracts if the parties are of different genders!
What a legal quagmire. Some lawyers are going to become enormously rich.
What is really frightening is that the supporters of gay marriage in California do not seem to have read the wording of the clause either.