CNN.com has just posted the following:

Read full story for latest details. </img>


More...

TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) -- New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples.

But the court left it to the Legislature to determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union.

Advocates on both sides of the issue believed the state posed the best chance for gay marriage to win approval since Massachusetts became the only state to do so in 2003 because the New Jersey Supreme Court has a history of extending civil rights protections.

Instead, the high court stopped short of fully approving gay marriage and gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include gay couples or create new civil unions. (Opinion -- pdf)

"The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people," the court said in its 4-3 ruling.

New Jersey lawmakers voted to allow domestic partnerships in 2004, but they have been reluctant to delve into the sensitive issue of marriage.

Under domestic partnerships, gay couples have some benefits of marriage, such as the right to inherit possessions if there is no will and healthcare coverage for state workers.

The case was brought by seven gay couples who say the state constitution allows them to marry.
================================================

Quite frankly, I see this as the "compromise" of the forseeable future.
RHS, I read your comment on the other board (and never got around to replying ) and can understand your position. Quite frankly, I personally see that as an acceptable compromise IF and ONLY IF it's a REAL compromise.
i.e. If the states DO NOT give "civil unions", then it's hardly a reasonable compromise.

Also, I sympathize with Hev's statements. "Civil unions" smack of the segregation tactics used against blacks. And if "separate but equal" is ONLY separate but not equal, then it's going to end up as a failure and eventually losing ...

We're at a stage in history where I think we could define one way or the other the face of the future of "marriage". And quite frankly, I think the ball is in the court of the "anti-gay marriage" crowd to realize that they're going to need to strike a happy medium.

Anti-gay crowd? You are NOT going to be able to continue your anti-gay legislation discrimination for all eternity. I'm not speaking out of personal desire for what I want to see, but rather speaking from a perspective that the shape of things ARE CHANGING and your side IS LOSING.
You've lost almost every other battle except for this one. The courts have CLEARLY expressed a DEFINITIVE position that prejudice against gays IS NOT sufficient reason for legislation against gays.

And like miscegenation before the gay marriage issue, the anti-gay marriage side is losing it's support. We have a HUGE cultural gap on this issue, with the OLDEST generation being the most against gay marriage, and the younger voters actually having MAJORITY SUPPORT for gay marriage.

Do the math. The old and prejudiced die out. The young and tolerant take their place. Culture shifts. You lose.

If you give up on this desire to express your personal prejudices against gays in legislation, you might save your word "marriage" for just the straight couples.
But if you don't, you're just going to wind up losing it all.

The latest poll was conducted in June, 2006, which showed the majority of New Jerseyans feel same-sex marriage should be legal in the state. 50% favored same-sex marriage, while 44% were opposed, and 6% were unsure. Nearly 2/3 of respondents, 65%, said they would agree with a law legalizing civil unions, while 30% were opposed. Poll Results
A Zogby International Poll, conducted in February, 2006, finds 56% of the State support a change in the marriage law that would allows same-sex couples the right to marry. 39% would oppose the change. By a 67%-28% margin, New Jersey voters say they oppose the idea of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and want the legislature to accept the decision of the Supreme Court. By a 77%-20% margin, New Jersey voters also say the legislature has better priorities than to try to amend the constitution to bar gay marriage.
A Zogby International poll, conducted in April, 2005, found 54.5% of New Jerseyans favored same-sex marriage. 40.1% disagreed, with 5.4% not yet having an opinion. When asked if those who were legally married outside of the State, 57.5% felt the marriages should be recognized, 37.2% thought the State shouldn't recognize them, and 5.3% weren't sure. Many Back Same-Sex Marriage In New Jersey
Same-sex marriage in New Jersey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Some background info...)