The short answer is NO.
While it’s still a bit unclear what was said and how this transpired, it’s not a stunning position. He apparently said nothing about the sacrament of marriage. As to the civil law, already you have same-sex marriage under the civil law. Pushing back to a civil union looks like a backward step from SSM - which is the law in many jurisdictions…sooooo. That is, it appears to be a move toward emphasizing the sacramental nature of marriage.
Consider what marriage is in under civil law: effectively a contract with certain attendant legal rights, like inheritance, property rights (including certain benefits like insurance, etc.) and next-of-kin rights. That’s it. There is no prohibition in any moral code I’m aware of that prohibits gay men and women from entering into contracts. As to sex…that happens anyway and, frankly, is now totally unrelated to marriage as a civil matter.
In fact, I submit that the Church’s opposition to civil unions for same sex individuals effectively undermined its own position and led to making SSM a reality. Would have done much better IMO to simply acknowledging that a civil union was simply a matter of civil law. Indeed, the Church should have pushed to have civil marriage called a civil union…and not a marriage at all. Then the Church should have focused on marriage as a sacrament and then have marriage squarely within its realm of competence. … By mixing the two…well you have what we have now. Well, the proverbial cow is out of the barn.