follow up on gay marriage

I was reading the DSM Register today and saw this:

WHAT IT MEANS FOR CHURCHES: The justices reiterate in Friday's ruling "the freedom of a religious organization to define marriages it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman." But "state government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly through it's legislation," the opinion says. "As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals."

The reason I found this interesting, was because so many people use the Bible as the reason they are against gay marriage, but the decesion made by the courts, right or wrong, was based on "constitutional standards of equal protection,"not the Bible. I had a conversation with a great nurse last night who is 100% against gay marriage, but not civil unions with equal rights for hetero and gay couples, fine, you can call it anything you want and if both sides get what they want (Christians keep marriage as between a man and a woman and gay couples get the same rights) perhaps we shouldn't squabble over the title of it. I'm not sure if gay rights people only want the word marriage in all of this or only want the rights, a word seems like a silly thing to argue over, but it wouldn't be the first time in history that has happened. She brought up the animal thing, so I had to bite my tounge since she was taking care of my wife. I enjoyed talking with her and getting her opinion on the subject, it was a distraction from all of the medical stuff.