This sort of clause will allow legislators to enforce, otherwise unwise and even unconstitutional provisions, in law, simply for fear of losing something else.
I think its more of a double wammy. First legislators don't enforce anything the other two (separate yet equal, sort of) enforce law, the administration by using the police powers of the state (and a few others too) and the courts who rule on what they think the legislators might have thought they were talking about. The Leg (because they had NO choice, it wasn't going to pass without the religious exemption) tacked it in there, and in the course of American Law, they just gave the churches one huge exemption from having to do things they don't like. That can, and will find people arguing for application in things beyond gay marriage, so I think they wrote the killswitch into there just as much to keep the churches from suing about it. Though I'm sure they will. But Churches are now free to discriminate again people who don't agree with them, but they were doing that anyway, and I don't know of any sane people who really object to giving them the out.
gay marriage is seen as much part of fundamental rights as mixed race marriages are now
They will, and for the same reason, it's just taking a while to get there. What we need, is not fifty more marriage laws* (many rather poorly written), what we need is for the Supreme Court to ... eventually... uphold in one way or the other the ruling of the Ninth Circuit which found that not allowing gays to marry (just as not allowing mixed race couples to marry) is a violation of both the due process and equal protection clauses. Now Federal Courts move show, they are designed to (actually the entire American system of government is designed to go real slow - the Constitution was written by people who really didn't like government, and making it slow as hell is one way to keep in in line). Where it stands now is that the losers have to argue that the judge was not just wrong once (and judges are loath to find other judges in error, particularly when this crap has already been plowed once on the issue of race), but twice. It's required for them to win both points if they want to stop gays from getting married again (again) {Remember, that when California allows gay to get married, it's going to be the THIRD time its happened}. Now, while the State of California was required to be part of the first trial (against it's will), it has no legal obligation to join the appeal, and they have declined. So the religious groups are going it alone. Because they are going it alone the appeals court has asked them, before anyone argues anything, to show standing (fancy word meaning that they have some sort of real and vested interest in the law. Which they don't. If they are not gay, it does not affect them at all. And that is due real soon. My guess is that may be enough to stop the appeal, at which point the Walker ruling stands, the stay is lifted, all sort of fabulous wedding start taking place again, and the religious groups will go to the Supremes, who may (but more likely may not) grant it certiorari and argue it there.**
* - Remember, New York is the first state to actually have this come from the Leg, as law, everywhere it was the result of court cases.
* -- I think the SC would rather wait for a case to come to them from New York, ie. a case about legislation, as opposed to one about Californians voting, because who knows what's that's about.
