Apparently, Gov. Kaine is going to attempt to have state employee insurance cover same-sex partners as well, just like married heterosexual couples. This is great in theory, and I whole-heartedly endorse the idea. However, you will run into a problem with this, and Gov. Kaine may create an unintentional legal loophole with this should it pass.
See, if unmarried same-sex couples can get insurance benefits, then unmarried heterosexual couples can get those same benefits. I know that this is not the intention of the Governor's plan, he is simply trying to extend benefits to gay couples who may very well be married if they had the right to do so. Now, if gay couples were able to get civil unions/marriage rights, you would eliminate these tricky legal situations.
Realistically, this is why I'm convinced that the term "marriage" should be defined as a union under God (which each church should have the free will and right to decide if it should be so for gay couples). Define unions under law as just that, a civil union, and allow this for heterosexual and homosexual couples with equal legal rights. This would also create a lot less of a problem in terms of contract law and less problems with propositions such as Gov. Kaine's.
Some have stated that this proposal would simply cover those who are all within the same household as a state employee. Not so sure about how this would not cost the state taxpayers more money, but Kaine claims it won't.