I live in NJ and this was the talk of the day:

TRENTON, N.J. - New Jersey's highest court opened the door Wednesday to making the state the second in the nation to allow gay marriage, ruling that lawmakers must offer homosexuals either marriage or something like it, such as civil unions.

In a ruling that fell short of what either side wanted or feared, the state Supreme Court declared 4-3 that homosexual couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual ones. The justices gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite the laws.

The ruling is similar to the 1999 high-court ruling in Vermont that led the state to create civil unions, which confer all of the rights and benefits available to married couples under state law.

"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the four-member majority.

The court said the Legislature "must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure" that gives gays all the privileges and obligations married couples have.

The three dissenters argued that the majority did not go far enough. They demanded full marriage for gays.

Gay rights activists had seen New Jersey as a promising place because it is a largely Democratic state in the Northeast. The only state to allow gay marriage is Massachusetts. The only states allowing civil unions are Vermont and Connecticut. New Jersey is also one of just five states that have no law or constitutional amendment expressly banning gay marriage.

If the court had legalized gay marriage outright, the effect could have been more far-reaching, and New Jersey could have become more of a magnet for gay couples than Massachusetts, which has a law barring out-of-state couples from marrying there if their marriages would not be recognized in their home states. New Jersey has no such law.

A clear-cut ruling legalizing gay marriage this close to Election Day could also have been a political bombshell, galvanizing Republicans and the religious right. Eight states have gay marriage bans on their ballots in November.

New Jersey Republicans, who are in the minority in the Legislature, said they would work to ban same-sex unions by enacting a constitutional amendment.

For gay rights advocates, there was debate over whether the ruling was a victory.

Lara Schwartz, legal director of Human Rights Campaign, said if legislators have to choose between civil unions and marriage, it is a no-lose situation for gay couples. "They get to decide whether it's chocolate or double-chocolate chip," Schwartz said.

Steven Goldstein, executive director of Garden State Equality, New Jersey's main gay rights group, said his organization wants nothing short of marriage. "We get to go from the back of the bus to the middle of the bus," he complained.

The New Jersey high court castigated the treatment homosexuals receive under the law.

"The seeming ordinariness of plaintiffs' lives is belied by the social indignities and economic difficulties that they daily face due to the inferior legal standing of their relationships compared to that of married couples," the court said.

Outside the court, news of the ruling caused confusion, with many of the roughly 100 gay marriage supporters outside asking each other what it meant.

"I'm definitely encouraged," said Chris Lodewyks, one of the plaintiffs who gathered at a Newark law office. But he added, "I'm not sure what this exactly means in terms of marriage."

Another plaintiff, Saundra Toby-Heath, was more effusive: "I feel they were listening and paying attention to us as human beings who wanted to have the same rights."

Garden State Equality, New Jersey's main gay political organization, quickly announced that three lawmakers would introduce a bill in the Legislature to give full marriage rights to gay couples.

"New Jersey is a progressive state and has a tradition of tolerance," said one of the lawmakers, Democratic Assemblyman Reed Gusciora.

GOP Assemblyman Richard Merkt said he would seek to have all seven justices impeached. "Neither the framers of New Jersey's 1947 constitution, nor the voters who ratified it, ever remotely contemplated the possibility of same-sex marriage," Merkt said.

Gay couples in New Jersey can already apply for domestic partnerships under a law passed in 2004. Among other things, domestic partnerships give couples the right to inherit possessions if there is no will and health care coverage for partners of state employees.

Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine supports domestic partnerships, but not gay marriage.

Supporters pushing for full gay marriage have had a two-year losing streak in state courts, including those in New York, Washington state, and both Nebraska and Georgia, where voter-approved bans on gay marriage were reinstated.

They also have suffered at the ballot boxes in 16 states where constitutions have been amended to ban same-sex unions.

Cases similar to the one ruled on Wednesday, which was filed by seven gay New Jersey couples, are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland.

New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals in New Jersey, but that lawmakers must determine whether the state will honor gay marriage or some other form of civil union.

Advocates on both sides of the issue had believed the relatively liberal New Jersey high court had the best chance of approving gay marriages since Massachusetts became the only state to do so in 2003.

But the high court stopped short of fully approving gay marriage in the state, and gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create new civil unions.

"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.

Opponents of gay marriage have won court victories this year in New York, Washington state, Nebraska and Georgia. Over the past two years, constitutions in 16 states have been amended to ban same-sex unions.

While New Jersey lawmakers voted to allow domestic partnerships in 2004, they have been reluctant to delve into the sensitive issue of marriage. The partnerships offer gays and lesbians benefits including the ability to visit a companion in the hospital, inherit their possessions if no will has been crafted, and healthcare coverage for state workers.

The ruling stops short of the full marriage that the high court in Massachusetts granted gay couples, but is similar to a 1999 ruling in Vermont. Lawmakers in that state created civil unions which offer the benefits, but not the name of marriage.

Good!

Awesome!

It's a step in the right direction. America needs to end selective discrimination.

I agree with you 100% Bree.

This is great news

Brilliant! Congratulations. What does that make now? Two big population states? Mass and NJ? Brilliant!

They approved marriage-equaviltant rights for civil unions, from what I've read. I would not be opposed to it if it didn't read so 'separate-but-equal'. It's step in the right direction, for sure.

This is wonderful news! One step forward.

It's great news for sure...but New Jersey? Come on...

Couldn't it have been in a more fabulous and pretty state?

I mean really...I am SO not having my wedding in Jersey. What-ever! Hello?

Why don't I just have someone pee in the wedding cake while I'm at it?

I'll wait...until it's more like LA/Miami and less Bronx/Queens thank you very much.

And I'm sorry if anyone here might live in NJ.

I'm sure it is nice were you might live.

but I have been in some parts and I found it sparkleless and gross.

And no...I'm not doing it.

Sorry.

^^

You can always get married in Massachusetts!

Also, here in Rhode Island, they said that if a gay couple gets married in MA, they'll honour the marriage in the state. So hopefully that means that they'll legalize gay marriage v. soon.

It's great news for sure...but New Jersey? Come on...

Couldn't it have been in a more fabulous and pretty state?

I mean really...I am SO not having my wedding in Jersey. What-ever! Hello?

Why don't I just have someone pee in the wedding cake while I'm at it?

I'll wait...until it's more like LA/Miami and less Bronx/Queens thank you very much.

And I'm sorry if anyone here might live in NJ.

I'm sure it is nice were you might live.

but I have been in some parts and I found it sparkleless and gross.

And no...I'm not doing it.

Sorry.

As if Ohio is any better? Well, maybe you should visit other places in NJ instead of the sparkleless and gross places. That's all I'm gonna say.....

This is one subject that I am so passionate about. I am glad it is a step in the right direction. It needs to go further and it needs to be across the board, every state. If you are of age, ANYONE should have the right to be married. I don't care what color you are, what religion you are, or what your sexuality is. I mean come on, when it comes right down to it, does it really matter what gender the person that you want to spend the rest of your life with? If you love that person and want to get married, I don't care what sex you are. It's about love, freedom, civil rights, and equality. Whatever happened to freedom of choice for all Americans?

In Vermont when their debate was going on, my sister lives in a very rural, and possibly the only small area in the state that aren't a bunch of liberals growing weed in their backyard. The people in the area were so angry, they were painting their barns in protest they were so upset.

I do want to say, I do oppose bigamy and you know marriage under age cause thats child molestation.

Ohio is wonderful.

Jersey??...um....right...

And that's all I'M going to say...

I don't know what parts of NJ you've been to, but if you don't think NJ has its VERY nice parts, then you're on crack.