But commenting about it on Slashdot does make him a dork.

What is this "best" of which you speak?

If the couple wants legal status designating that previously unrelated individuals should henceforth be treated as a legally related group, then government must be involved. Being legally allowed a relatives-only visit to a hospitalized parter, for example; or legal standing in probate, for another; or legal responsibility for a child's actions -- is the partner legally a "parent" or just someone who happens to live in the same house?. Such legal acknowledgement does not have to be called "marriage," nor does it have to be conflated with any religious practice.

It's OK. As long as the state didn't do anything wrong they have nothing to worry about.

No, it's very different. Banks don't get to put "suspicious" money into their own pockets. You don't have to "keep after" banks "long enough" -- you only have to say "lawyer" because banks don't get away with ignoring legal challenges. Banks can only tell you "because we said so" until law enforcement, jurists, or banking regulators get involved.

Just another example of Internet lawlessness that the State of California will have to save us from.....

In other words the messy task of... governing that over which you have no jurisdiction. Welcome to the Interstate Commerce Clause. And that's just the intra-US transactions; good luck legislating California state sales taxes on amazon.uk.

They're called "The Hollywood Hills", you insensitive clod!

No, it was so someone could publish a book with no camels on the cover so we could all then call it the 0-Camel Book.

Reminds me of The Gervais Principal.