Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al. targets the denial of certain federal rights and protections to married same-sex couples in Massachusetts. GLAD lawsuits brought marriage equality to Massachusetts (2004) and Connecticut (2008), the only states where same-sex couples can currently legally marry. This suit, filed today in federal District Court in Boston, addresses the use of DOMA Section 3 to deny spousal protections in Social Security, federal income tax, federal employees' and retirees' benefits, and in the issuance of passports.

It's time for the federal government to end its blatant double standard of providing rights and protections to all married couples except gay and lesbian married couples, said Mary L. Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director for GLAD. Same-sex married couples have taken on the commitment of marriage, play by the rules, and pay into the system. But they are denied critical federal legal protections that form a safety net to support other married couples and their children.

Passed in 1996, DOMA Section 3, now codified at 1 U.S.C. section 7, limits the marriages the federal government will respect to those between a man and a woman. Section 2 of DOMA, not at issue in this lawsuit, allows states to establish public policies about what marriages they will and will not respect.

GLAD argues that DOMA Section 3 violates the federal constitutional guarantee of equal protection as applied to federal income tax, Social Security, federal employees and retirees, and in the issuance of passports. GLAD also contends that DOMA Section 3 is an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into marriage law, always considered the province of the states.

The plaintiffs are eight married couples and three widowers, each of whom is currently eligible for a federal program. Each has applied for a benefit under that program and was denied because of DOMA Section 3.

After decades together, we were thrilled to be able to marry, said Nancy Gill, a postal worker married to Marcelle Letourneau. But we were shocked when I applied to put Marcelle on my family health plan, and we were rejected. My employer, the federal government, doesn't protect my family the same way it does my co-workers' families. That's not right.

Dean Hara, the surviving spouse of late Congressman Gerry Studds, said Gerry and I spent 16 wonderful years together and I miss him. The federal government's denial to me of Gerry's pension and health insurance added insult to injury at the worst time of my life. These systems are set up to help married people with the sudden loss of their partner, but instead of helping me, it hurt me.

The plaintiffs represented in the case are: Nancy Gill (51) and Marcelle Letourneau (47) of Bridgewater: Nancy has been a postal worker for more than 21 years, but as a federal employee she is unable to provide for Marcelle the health benefits that her co-workers' spouses readily receive. Nancy and Marcelle have 2 children.

Dean Hara (51) of Boston: The spouse of former Congressman Gerry Studds who died suddenly in 2006, Dean is denied Gerry's congressional pension, health insurance, and the other protections available to surviving spouses of federal employees. Studds was a public servant for 27 years, 24 of those in Congress.

Melba Abreu (53) and Beatrice Hernandez (47) of Boston: Both Cuban-Americans, they are unable to file federal tax returns jointly and lose thousands of dollars each year. Because of that inequity, their dream of owning their own business is deferred.

Mary Ritchie (48) and Kathy Bush (49) of Framingham: Mary and Kathy are mothers of two school-age boys. Mary, a state trooper, and Kathy, a stay-at-home mom, have a harder time making ends meet because they cannot jointly file federal taxes. Additionally, Kathy would not be eligible for the full line-of-duty benefit for surviving spouses should Mary die while on the job.

Herbert Burtis (78) of Sandisfield: Herb, a 78-year-old musician and teacher, lost his spouse after 60 years together, including the last 13 when John battled Parkinson's disease. Herb's already limited income is severely reduced because he is denied the $700 month that would come with Social Security survivor benefits.

Dorene (43) and Mary (48) Bowe-Shulman of Acton: Dorene and Mary are raising two children and trying to save for their future. Mary, a lawyer, covers Dorene, an acupuncturist, on her health insurance but they pay taxes on the plan because the federal government doesn't recognize their marriage. They also lose thousands each year because they can't jointly file federal tax returns.

Randell Lewis-Kendell (52) of Harwich Port: Randy lost Rob, his spouse and partner of 30 years, to cancer in 2007. A shopkeeper on Cape Cod, Randy struggled to pay for Rob's funeral expenses because the federal government denied him the $255 benefit it provides all other bereaved spouses. When Randy turns 60, he will not be eligible for Rob's higher Social Security benefit.

Martin (Al) Koski (66) and Jim Fitzgerald (57) of Bourne: Al and Jim have been together for 33 years. Al has retired after working for Social Security for 22 years but unlike his fellow workers he's unable to provide Jim with health coverage or access to his pension. Jim has severe asthma and they both worry about his health and their security in their old age.

Bette Jo Green (66) and Jo Ann Whitehead (67) of Jamaica Plain: Bette Jo is a retired labor and delivery nurse, and Jo Ann is a semi-retired gardening educator. Their retirement income is smaller than it should be because even though they paid into Social Security throughout their lives, they aren't eligible for the standard spousal Social Security formula that results in higher payments to the lower earning spouse.

Marlin Nabors (31) and Jonathan Knight (28) of Hyde Park: Young marrieds and Mid-Western transplants to Boston, Marlin and Jonathan have just bought their first house together and talk about having children. Unable to jointly file federal tax returns, they have lost thousands of dollars. Yet they would happily pay more in taxes if they knew their marriage was respected by the federal government.

Keith (37) and Al Toney (42) of Worcester: The couple raised Al's now college-age daughter, and have been foster parents for several children. After choosing the family name Toney upon getting married, Keith has been unable to obtain a passport in his correct name because of DOMA, which makes him and the couple vulnerable when they travel in a security-conscious, post-9/11 world.

More than 10,000 couples residing in Massachusetts have married since 2004, and not one has received a single federal benefit or protection available to all other married couples. As soon as couples started marrying, GLAD started hearing from couples who have been harmed and whose children have been harmed because of DOMA.

While GLAD's case focuses on certain federal programs, DOMA Section 3 cuts across virtually every area of federal law. Married same-sex couples cannot, for example, take family and medical leave to care for a seriously ill spouse; access the many family benefits associated with military service; or sponsor a foreign spouse to reside in this country.

GLAD's legal team is led by Mary Bonauto and GLAD Legal Director Gary Buseck, and Staff Attorneys Nima Eshghi and Janson Wu. Co-operating counsel on the case include Foley Hoag LLP (Boston), Sullivan & Worcester LLP (Boston), Jenner & Block LLP (Washington, DC), and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC (Washington, DC).

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England's leading legal organization devoted to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression. The complaint is available here.

Senate leaders are now considering a full Senate vote to pull the bill from the Committee. The bills supporters believe they have sufficient votes bring the bill to the floor and to pass it. There is no indication as to whether the Governor will sign the bill if it passes.

The Honolulu Advertiser has more information here.

The Senate Judiciary Committee had scheduled hearings on the bill for today, however, the Committee is deadlocked 3-3 and the bill may not make it out of Committee. The full Senate can vote to pull the bill from the Committee, although such a vote is controversial.

Supporters of the bill believe that most of the Senate's Democrats will vote to approve the bill. If so, the bill will proceed to the Governor's desk, where its fate is also uncertain. Governor Linda Lingle as in the past supported limited marriage to opposite-sex couples.

The majority opinion said: The question is really whether Michigan’s legal framework for protecting and promoting the best interests and welfare of the children within its jurisdiction excludes children with a parent or parents who could not have adopted them under Michigan law. We conclude that it does not…. The only relevant consideration in this matter is each individual party’s established relationship as an adoptive parent with the children, not their relationship with each other.

It is well established law that Michigan courts must put the best interests of children first and decide child custody cases without regard to the sex, sexual orientation, or marital status of the parents, or whether they adopted their children in another state —there is no gay exception, said Camilla Taylor, Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal’s Midwest Regional Office in Chicago. We are pleased that the appeals court refused to credit the argument that Michigan’s antigay constitutional amendment deprives courts of the ability to do what’s best for children.

Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan represent Diane Giancaspro, a lesbian mother who, in August 2007, filed papers asking a Michigan trial court to determine custody of the three children she and her ex-partner, Lisa Ann Congleton, adopted together in Illinois before moving as a family to Michigan. When the couple’s relationship ended, Congleton moved to dismiss Giancaspro’s custody case, arguing that their adoption was invalid under the Michigan Child Custody Act and citing Michigan’s antigay constitutional amendment. In September, the trial court granted Congleton’s motion, holding both parties’ parental rights unenforceable in Michigan, calling into question whether the children were effectively orphans in Michigan and whether both parents would be able to do such essential things as authorize medical treatment at a public hospital, enroll them in school, or recover a lost child from a local police department.

The trial court’s ruling left the children in legal limbo, without an enforceable legal connection to either parent. In March 2008, Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Michigan filed a brief with the Michigan Court of Appeals asking the court to reverse the trial court’s ruling, arguing that it violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which protects the validity of judicial decrees—such as adoptions—across state lines, and pointing out that Michigan’s antigay amendment limiting marriage pertains only to adult relationships—and has no effect on a court’s ability to hear cases that concern only relationships between parents and children, such as custody cases. Today’s ruling is based on the federal Full Faith and Credit clause and upholds long-standing Michigan law which has always interpreted these matters in the best interests of the children.

This is a victory for children in Michigan, said Kary L. Moss, ACLU of Michigan Executive Director. We are thrilled that the appeals court has reversed the trial court’s decision. Concluding that children of gay parents have no protections in Michigan’s courts was not only wrong, but extremely dangerous. Today gay parents and their children can rest easier knowing that they again have access to Michigan courts.

My concern is the well-being of my children. I want them to live in a place where their rights are protected, said Giancaspro, I’m relieved that we can go on with our lives without worrying every day about whether I'll be recognized as their parent and able to protect them if, heaven forbid, anything should happen to them.

This is the second appeals court in the nation to address whether an antigay constitutional amendment concerning marriage has any impact on the parenting or custodial rights of gay men and lesbians. In June of 2008, Lambda Legal won a similar case before an appeals court in Ohio. In that case, In re JDF, a lesbian mother argued that Ohio’s antigay constitutional amendment concerning marriage rendered the agreement she had obtained years earlier to share custody of her son with her former partner unenforceable. As in this case, the court brushed aside her argument about the constitutional amendment to reaffirm longstanding legal principles prohibiting attacks on child custody orders years after their entry, and providing stability and protection to the children at the heart of custody disputes and, in December 2008, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s effort to use Ohio’s antigay constitutional amendment as a weapon to sever the parental relationship between her child and her former partner.

Camilla Taylor, Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal’s Midwest Regional Office in Chicago is lead counsel. She was assisted by Supervising Senior Staff Attorney Kenneth Upton in Lambda Legal’s South Central Regional Office, and joined by Jay D. Kaplan, Michael J. Steinberg and Kary L.Moss at the American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan in Detroit.

In a good sign, the number of residents who favor amending the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage (which would similarly prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages from other states) is now 41%, down from 47% in October 2007. Opposition to such an amendment has risen by 6% in the same period.

The pollsters go out on a limb, positing that "New Jersey public opinion seems to favor the status quo." However, it is more likely that New Jersey voters are not heavily focused on this issue and are more concerned with the economic crisis than the marriage equality issue.

A copy of the report is available here.

Most same-sex couples (and most married couples) will never feel the bite of the federal estate tax. At the current exclusion, the Congressional Budget Office estimates only about 0.15% of all estates —only 3,676 estates — would be subject to the estate tax.

Same-sex couples, on the other hand, are most likely to be affected by the federal gift tax. Because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), same-sex couples are not eligible for the unlimited gift tax exclusion for gifts between spouses. As a result, transfers between same-sex spouses —even those who are married or in civil unions — must be reported to the extent that they exceed the federal exclusion in any one tax year.

The gift tax exclusion, which is adjusted for inflation, increased to $13,000 in 2009, up from $12,000 in 2008.

While the day a relationship ends is never happy, I am relieved that the courts of New Jersey are allowing us to move on, rather than keeping our relationship status in legal limbo, said La Kia Hammond, the ACLU-NJ client who was granted a divorce in New Jersey today. Breaking up is painful enough, and I'm happy we won't have to face the hardship of having to fight just to make it official.

Despite Hammond's valid marriage in Canada, the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General argued that the couple should not be granted a divorce. Rather, the state attorney suggested that the couple should be granted dissolution of civil union.  However, as the ACLU-NJ argued, without an actual divorce from their marriage, the couple might still be considered legally married in Canada as well as in U.S. states that recognize same-sex marriages but do not have civil unions.

The judge properly recognized that if you come to New Jersey with a valid marriage, you are entitled to leave with a divorce, said Lawrence Lustberg of Gibbons, P.C., who, along with Avidan Cover of Gibbons and solo practitioner Stephen Hyland, represented La Kia Hammond as cooperating attorneys for the ACLU-NJ.  Not granting a divorce in this situation would create confusion and undermine the longstanding legal principle of comity, which requires us to respect laws of other countries.

New Jersey Superior Court Judge Mary C. Jacobson recognized that New Jersey accepts all foreign marriages except for ones that are affronts to New Jersey public policy.  The Office of the Attorney General could muster no legitimate argument in this case to justify such an exception, especially given that the New Jersey Supreme Court had made clear that allowing marriages of same-sex couples could be permissible in New Jersey.

In fact, the New Jersey Supreme Court held in Lewis v. Harris that the state cannot create a system that imposes greater legal or economic hardships on same-sex couples that are not placed on opposite-sex couples.  Not allowing the couple a divorce would have forced them to begin a second legal process to completely end their legal relationship, placing additional economic and legal burdens on same-sex couples.

This decision is a step in the right direction, but one that never should have had to be made, said Hyland.  The Attorney General needlessly created confusion and legal problems for these couples.  She should simply recognize out-of-state marriages — the only way to ensure equal treatment for couples married outside of New Jersey.

The decision puts into question the legality of the Attorney General's 2007 formal opinion ordering that out-of-state marriages not be accepted as marriages but, rather, be transformed into civil unions.

Today's decision comes just over a month after the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, tasked with examining the effects of the 2007 civil union law, determined that the legal category was separate and unequal.

By creating a separate system of rights and by injecting language and titles not understood or easily incorporated into existing real-life events and transactions, the Civil Unions Law has failed to fulfill the promise of equality, said Ed Barocas in testimony before the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, which in December 2008 declared civil unions to be separate and unequal. The continued injustice for our state's gay and lesbian citizens exists on levels both profound and mundane.

Because, I said, Pennsylvania doesn't respect our marriage. Every time Richard and I cross over this line into Philadelphia from New Jersey, our rights are taken away from us. We only get those rights back when we cross back over that line into New Jersey.

Crossing the line is very common these days, particularly in a large metropolitan area such as  Philadelphia, or New York City. Most people never think twice about the differences between the laws of one state and another.

However for members of the LGBT community, crossing the line can mean the difference between no rights, some rights and full rights. In this column, I want to explore the changing legal recognition that comes about through something as mundane as driving across the Ben Franklin Bridge or taking the PATH trains from Manhattan to Jersey City.

Crossing the line can have profound and unintended effects not only on our rights as LGBT individuals, but on our rights and responsibilities as parents, spouses, and to each other. Let me share with you a few examples.

A lesbian couple I know decided to have a child by artificial insemination. Because this couple lived in Philadelphia, and because their baby was born in Philadelphia, the son they had jointly chosen to bring into the world and into their life was legally recognized by Pennsylvania as being a child born to a single mother. In order for their son to have two parents on his birth certificate, the non-birth parent had to undergo a second parent adoption - a legal procedure that is costly, time-consuming, and invasive of the family's privacy.

Contrast this with another lesbian couple I know who live in New Jersey. Because this couple was in a civil union when their child was born in a New Jersey hospital, both parents were named as such on their son's birth certificate. So long as the couple and their child remained in New Jersey, they can be secure in the knowledge that they have a legally recognized parent-child relationship. But what happens when this happy family crosses the line to spend a weekend at the beach in Rehoboth, Delaware? A birth certificate is not an absolute proof of parentage, because it is subject to challenge in court by the mother as well as others. In some states, such as Virginia or Ohio, there are constitutional and statutory prohibitions on the recognition of civil unions or same sex marriages that may endanger the non-birth parent's rights. When our New Jersey civil union couple travels to Delaware, they lose the presumption that they are both parents that arises because of their civil union. In order to protect their rights across the line, the New Jersey couple has to undergo a more formal determination of parentage that results in a judgment that is likely to be recognized in all states.

In another example, I am aware of a gay couple from Pennsylvania who crossed the line to Vermont and in 2001, obtained a civil union. However, because Pennsylvania doesn't recognize a civil union, when one partner died, the family prevented the surviving partner from claiming his longtime partner's remains, and denied him the opportunity to see to the burial of his partner.

Things are marginally better when crossing the line from New Jersey to New York. A few years ago, a gay man sued St. Vincent's Hospital in New York City for negligence and loss of consortium after his partner died due to the medical negligence of the hospital. Although the couple had crossed the line into Vermont and obtained a civil union, the court refused to recognize their legal relationship, and the surviving partner's suit was dismissed.

However, New York State has since begun recognizing same-sex marriages legally entered outside New York's borders. For couples that crossed the line into Canada, California, Massachusetts and Connecticut to legally wed, this is good news because it means that New York will treat their marriage with the same respect accorded to heterosexual married couples. Unfortunately, New York does not extend the same recognition and respect to civil union spouses who cross the line from New Jersey, Vermont or New Hampshire.

Another line that gets crossed by same-sex couples on a regular basis is that invisible line between rights and responsibilities provided by a state such as New Jersey or Massachusetts, and the rights and responsibilities provided to married couples under federal law. Yet another line we sometimes cross represents the border between the United States and another country. Although we may not cross these international lines as frequently as we do the lines between states, they nonetheless affect our lives.

When I was a young boy, I rode a bus to Virginia. When the bus arrived in the District of Columbia, the passengers rearranged themselves, with the black passengers moving to the back of the bus before we crossed the Potomac into Virginia. Although crossing the line today doesn't have the visible drama of the days of Jim Crow, the legal effect can be just as profound. As more states and countries extend (or deny) legal recognition of our rights and our relationships, we need to become more personally aware of exactly where our rights and responsibilities begin and end.

LGBT individuals and couples are as mobile as their heterosexual counterparts. Where you choose to live, work, and play, can make a significant difference in your life. In future columns, I will explore how simply crossing the line from one state or county to another affects your rights. I hope this column will bring you a greater understanding of how the simple act of crossing the line changes your life.

The directive, which conforms with Gov. David Paterson's state-wide order to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, means that married same-sex couples are treated equally to opposite-sex married couples, at least in regard to the birth of children during the marriage.

The change does not currently apply to children born in New York City, which maintains its own registry and which is considering revising its own policies and forms.

More …

We, the thirteen members of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, unanimously issue this final report, containing a set of recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature of the State of New Jersey. After eighteen public meetings, 26 hours of oral testimony and hundreds of pages of written submission from more than 150 witnesses, this Commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children. In a number of cases, the negative effect of the Civil Union Act on the physical and mental health of same-sex couples and their children is striking, largely because a number of employers and hospitals do not recognize the rights and benefits of marriage for civil union couples.

The full report can be downloaded here.

The state becomes the third to recognize full marriage equality, after Massachusetts and California. Like California, the Court found that, under the Connecticut Constitution, sexual orientation is a quasi-suspect class, thereby holding that laws concerning sexual orientation must withstand a heightened level of scrutiny to be found constitutional. The majority held that the marriage laws did not pass that level of scrutiny.

The Court's decision is found here.

Although we cannot predict when these unexpected events will fall on us, we can take important — and relatively easy — steps to avoid the unintended consequences of these events.

In March 2005, the public became aware of the dramatic struggle involving the life — and death — of Terri Schiavo. Terry was a young woman whose heart unexpectedly stopped, resulting in extensive brain damage that left her in a persistent vegetative state. For over 5 years, Terri's husband, Michael and her parents waged a battle in the courts, in the legislature, and in the press over the question of who had the right to determine Terri's wishes regarding her medical care. Ultimately, Terri's husband prevailed, as legally he should have, the feeding tube that maintained her was withdrawn, and Terri died on March 31, 2005. Regardless of your personal feelings about Terri's situation, it is important to understand the underlying reasons this particular case played out in such a contentious manner.

Like many adults in the U.S., Terri left no written indication of her wishes regarding her medical care. As a result, the various family members fought with each other for the right to impose their interpretation of Terri's wishes. Sadly, Terri's case would long ago have been resolved had she executed a set of advanced directives — specifically, a living will and/or a medical proxy designation.

If you do not have any form of advance directive, you are not alone. By some estimates, over 70% of Americans have not executed a living will, medical proxy or financial power of attorney. Without these documents, you are relying on others — your family, your spouse — to make important decisions about your health, welfare, and even about your right to live or die. When you rely on others to make these decisions for you, their decision may not be that which you would have made yourself. When there is disagreement by family members, as in Terri's case, your failure to choose may result in a lengthy, expensive legal battle that destroys family unity.

New Jersey passed the Advance Directives for Health Care Act in 1991. The Act allows competent adults to plan ahead for health care decisions by executing a living will and medical proxy directive. It also provides direction to courts when a decision must be made on behalf of someone who, like Terri, has not left a living will. The Act also provides that, when a patient has not named a particular person as their surrogate, the court will choose an appropriate individual. Normally, the court will choose the patient's next of kin, with preference being given to the patient's spouse, if any. Once a surrogate has determined the patient's wishes, the decision is not subject to judicial review.

In 2004, the Domestic Partnership Act granted registered domestic partners the right to make medical and legal decisions on behalf of an incapacitated partner and in 2006, the civil union law granted civil union spouses the same right to make medical decisions as a married spouse. However, these rights are limited to registered domestic partners or civil union spouses; if you and your partner are simply living together, you have no legal right to make these decisions in the absence of a written directive.

For same-sex couples, there are two important lessons to be learned. First, if you are not in a registered domestic partnership or in a valid civil union, you must have a living will and medical proxy in writing naming your partner (or whomever you choose) as your agent. Second, you should have a written directive even if you are in a civil union or domestic partnership because your legal rights can only be guaranteed in states that, like New Jersey, recognize and respect your relationship.

To recognize same-sex marriages legally solemnized in other jurisdictions is consistent with New York's common law, statutory law, and constitutional separation of powers, said the ruling by Justice Lucy Billings in Bronx Supreme Court.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund, representing a group of Republican lawmakers, went to court accusing Paterson of overstepping his authority.

The governor has no authority to issue directives which conflict with New York's public policy. His actions are an assault on the democratic process, ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum argued in court. The future of marriage should be decided by the legislature, not executives who take matters into their own hands.

NYS attorney's representing Paterson argued that the governor was within his constitutional rights to issue directives to state agencies over which he has legal authority.

Paterson issued his directive in May after a midlevel appeals court ruled that a same-sex couple's marriage in Canada should be recognized in New York State.

Neither the ruling nor Paterson's directive allowed for same-sex couples to marry in New York. Both were limited to marriages performed only in California and Massachusetts and in countries which have legalized same-sex marriage.

In 2006, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled that same-sex couples do not have an automatic constitutional right to marry in the state. It said that the issue, however, could be taken up by the Legislature.

Last year, the Democratically-controlled New York State Assembly passed same-sex marriage legislation but the GOP-controlled Senate has refused to take up the bill.

Raum did not say if he plans an appeal.

The Zogby Poll found an even bigger majority would not be opposed to lawmakers changing the civil union law to marriage equality.

The poll, commissioned by Garden State Equality, found that by 59 to 36 percent, New Jerseyans would be fine with public officials’ changing the civil union law to marriage equality.

The poll reminded voters that New Jersey already has a civil union law, and found a majority of New Jersey still supports marriage for same-sex couples – 50.1 to 42.3 percent. And 69 percent of New Jerseyans said that marriage equality is inevitable in the state.

In response to the question: Currently, New Jersey lets same-sex couples enter only into civil unions, while California and Massachusetts give same-sex couples the freedom to marry. Do you support or oppose same-sex couples in New Jersey also getting the freedom to marry? 50.1 percent said support. 42.3 percent said oppose.

In response to the question: If public officials conclude that the civil union law has not worked to provide same-sex couples the legal protections that marriage would, and that New Jersey should fix the problem by giving same-sex couples the freedom to marry, would you be fine with that or upset by that? 59 percent said, fine with that; 36 percent said, upset by that.

No one should doubt the meaning of these numbers, said Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality. New Jersey wants to end discrimination in marriage, and is ready for our public officials to do it right now.The civil union law is one the greatest civil rights failures of our time.New Jersey sees that, and understands that justice delayed is justice denied.

New Jersey also wants Gov. Corzine to follow the lead of New York Gov. David Paterson, who has recognized legal out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples in his own state. In response to the question: Same-sex couples can already be legally married in places outside New Jersey, including California and Massachusetts. Do you think New Jersey should recognize those marriages as marriages in New Jersey? 57 percent said yes and 37 percent said no.

In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled same-sex couples must have all the rights of marriage.

The Court gave the New Jersey State Legislature 180 days to act on the decision to grant same-sex couples the rights and benefits enjoyed by different-sex married couples, but left it up to the legislators to decide whether to call it marriage or civil unions.

The legislature opted for civil unions. But that amounts to separate but equal, said civil rights groups.

A commission established by the state to study same-sex civil unions in New Jersey agrees with that argument.

The commission held three public hearings last year at which the majority of the testimony came from people who were in civil unions and said they were still not being treated the way married couples are by government agencies, employers and others.

For instance, the commission found that many companies in the state that are self-insured - and therefore are regulated by federal, rather than state, law - refuse to provide health insurance to the partners of their employees.

A bill to allow for same-sex marriage has been filed in the New Jersey legislature but has gained little support from either House of Senate leaders.