It came as no surprise when legislation to place the issue of a gay marriage ban before the voters died this afternoon in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

But what was interesting was some of the debate over the bill-- specifically, what the bill's language would mean for local governments.

ACA 3 by Assemblymember Ray Haynes (R-Murietta) would ask voters to amend the state Constitution by restricting marriage to one man and one woman. It also, however, contains language that says the "benefits" of marriage may not be conferred upon any other "union or partnership."

And that, to many of the committee's majority Democrats, raised a separate issue: if a city chooses to offer all the same benefits to a gay employee and their partner that are offered to a heterosexual employee and their spouse... then would that city be in violation of the state Constitution (assuming ACA 3 was approved by the voters)?

The issue prompted a testy exchange between Haynes and several Democrats, including Assemblymember Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa). Haynes asserted the bill would not ban those benefits, while Evans argued the bill's language was silent on the issue. Haynes later dismissed the debate as a "red herring" raised by Democrats who weren't going to vote for his bill in the first place.

And they didn't let him down. ACA 3 was defeated on a party line vote... the same kind of vote that led the committee to approve Assemblymember Mark Leno's AB 19 allowing gay marriage just a few weeks ago.