According to the Court's opinion, the plaintiff Repent America members actually insulted individual attendees [of Outfest 2004], blocked access to [Outfest] vendors, and disobeyed direct orders from the police, who were trying to preserve order and keep the peace.

Repent America members were arrested during the 2004 OutFest celebration in Philadelphia after disobeying police orders to move as they proclaimed their hate-filled, anti-gay message. Although the charges were subsequently dropped, the group filed suit in federal court, claiming their First Amendment rights had been violated by the police, the city, and PhillyPride. After the trial court dismissed the group's claims, Repent America appealed to the Third Circuit.

However, the Third Circuit rejected the groups claims, stating that the police had "ample justification" to force the group to move when they "interfered" with OutFest activities. Although the Third Circuit held that Repent America had a First Amendment right to communicate its message, those rights "are not superior" to the Constitutional rights of the permit holder, Philly Pride, to convey its own pro-gay message.

The right of free speech does not encompass the right to cause disruption, and that is particularly true when those claiming protection of the First Amendment cause actual disruption of an even covered by a permit, wrote Judge Dolores K. Sloviter. When Repent America members went from distributing literature and wearing signs to disruption of the permitted activities, the existence of a permit tilts the balance in favor of the permit-holders, she wrote.

Executive Director Fran Price said that Instead of letting us have our celebration in peace, Repent America members not only interfered with our LGBT event, they proceeded to sue both Philly Pride and the police. The Court was very precise that their claim for being arrested for praying on the streets of Philadelphia were without merit.

Senior Advisor Chuck Volz said that the use of bullhorns and the unChristianlike manner of Repent America members at verbally assaulting a transgender telling her that her five o'clock shadow was showing and that her mirror had lied to her was very important to the Third Circuit.

Repent America is the modern day version of the biblical wolves in sheep clothing, said Volz. They were gay bashers pretending to be Christians. The court saw right through them.

The House is expected to vote this week.

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi (D) and Senate President Therese Murray (D) both support the repeal effort. If the bill passes the House Gov. Deval Patrick (D) has said he will sign it.

The old law, which says marriage licenses cannot be issued to couples whose weddings would be illegal in the states where they lived, was originally passed when interracial marriage was legal in Massachusetts but not in most other parts of the country.

When the US Supreme Court overturned state bans on interracial marriage the the Massachusetts law fell into disuse.

However, when the Massachusetts high court struck down the state ban on same-sex marriage in 2003, then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R) dusted off the old law, threatening to charge local clerks if they issued marriage licenses to out-of-state same-sex couples.

In a challenge to the out-of-state ban the Supreme Judicial court in 2006 upheld the law but noted that since Rhode Island did not have a specific law defining couple in its marriage law gay and lesbian couples from that state could marry in Massachusetts. Rhode Island is believed to be the only state without a definition of what constitutes a couple.

The court also said that the Massachusetts legislature could repeal the 1913 law.

An analysis by the state Office of Housing and Economic Development found repealing the law would draw thousands of couples to Massachusetts, boosting the economy by $111 million, creating 330 jobs and generating $5 million in taxes and fees over three years.

The study assumes New York would provide the largest number of gay couples — more than 21,000 couples — with New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine bringing the total to more than 30,000 in the first three years after the ban was lifted.

California, the only other state to allow same-sex marriage has no out-of-state limitation.

The suit will be filed by Lambda Legal which is representing Janice Langbehn.

Langbehn and Lisa Pond had planned to take their three children on a family cruise. The Olympia, Washington couple had been together 18 years and with their children were looking forward to the holiday.

But just as they were about to depart on the cruise from Miami, Florida. Pond, a healthy 39-year-old, suddenly collapsed. She was rushed to Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami with Langbehn and the children following close behind.

Once Langbehn and the children arrived at the hospital the hospital refused to accept information from her about Ponds’s medical history.

Langbehn says she was informed that she was in an antigay city and state, and she could expect to receive no information or acknowledgment as family.

A doctor finally spoke with Janice telling her that there was no chance of recovery.

Other than one five minute visit, which was orchestrated by a Catholic priest at Langbehn’s request to perform last rites, and despite the doctor’s acknowledgement that no medical reason existed to prevent visitation, neither she nor her children were allowed to see Pond until nearly eight hours after their arrival.

Soon after Pond's death, Langbehn tried to get her death certificate in order to get life insurance and Social Security benefits for their children. She was denied both by the State of Florida and the Dade County Medical Examiner.

In February, Lambda Legal sent a letter to Jackson Memorial Hospital and announced its intent to file a lawsuit on behalf of Pond's family.

After receiving no response from the hospital despite providing them sufficient opportunity to avoid litigation, Janice and her family are now able to seek justice in a court of law, said Lambda spokesperson Tika Milan.

In February 2006, just prior to the effective date of the civil union law in New Jersey, then-Attorney General (now Supreme Court Chief Justice) Stuart Rabner issued an opinion regarding the recognition of same-sex legal relationships entered outside this state. At the time, Rabner opined that same-sex marriages would be recognized as a civil union, and not as a marriage.

Therefore, New Jersey couples who are considering a California marriage can expect that your marriage, at a minimum, would be treated as a civil union here in New Jersey. It would also be recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts and New York, as well as in countries that provide full marriage equality, including Canada, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and, most recently, Norway. However, it will not be recognized in Vermont, New Hampshire or Connecticut —all states that recognize civil unions— nor will it be recognized in most US states.

If you are already in a civil union in New Jersey, there is no harm and, at the moment, no benefit to getting married in California. However, one consideration should be that there is great uncertainty as to the legal status of California marriages should the anti-marriage initiative pass in November.

This initiative seeks to amend the California constitution to prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages. At this time, no one seems to know what its effect will be on existing same-sex marriages, assuming it passes. This uncertainty should give gay and lesbian couples pause.

Although there is great excitement now in the thought of getting married in California, there is an alternative that does not have the same uncertainty. Gay and lesbian couples from the US have been marrying in Canada for several years now, without fear that their marriage will be invalidated under Canadian law. As in California, there is no waiting period and no residency requirement.

A Canadian marriage will be recognized in California and Massachusetts —as a marriage— and in New Jersey as a civil union. Since Canada does not recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships, New Jersey couples who are in an existing civil union or domestic partnership are free to marry in Canada. And with Niagara Falls, Ontario a mere six to eight hours away by car, and Toronto easily accessible by air from Newark, a Canadian wedding and honeymoon may be an affordable alternative to marrying in California.

In Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415 (2006), the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated marriage equality to all consenting couples in the State. The court held that denying rights and benefits to same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. The court held that to comply with this constitutional mandate, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure which would provide, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples. The Legislature first responded to Lewis v. Harris by enacting P.L.2006, c.103 (C.37:1-28 et al.), which established same-sex civil unions.

The bill's findings and declarations provide that civil marriage is a legal institution recognized by the State in order to promote stable relationships and to protect individuals who are in those relationships. The institution of marriage also provides important protections for the families of those who are married, including not only children or other dependents, but also members of their extended families.

In addition, the bill's findings and declarations provide that the Legislature has an interest in encouraging stable relationships, and that it is the intent of the Legislature in enacting the bill to end the pernicious practice of marriage discrimination in New Jersey.

Under the bill, marriage would be defined as the legally recognized union of two consenting persons in a committed relationship. The bill provides that whenever the term marriage occurs or the term man, woman, husband or wife occurs in the context of marriage or any reference is made thereto in any law, statute, rule, regulation or order, the same shall be deemed to mean or refer to the union of two persons pursuant to the bill.

The bill provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that the bill be interpreted consistently with the guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and of Article I, paragraph 4 of the New Jersey Constitution.

The bill specifically provides that no member of the clergy of any religion authorized to solemnize marriage and no religious society, institution or organization in this State would be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by Article I, paragraph 4 of the New Jersey Constitution.

In addition, the bill updates language in current law concerning the authority to solemnize marriages, set out in R.S.37:1-13. Currently, this section of law authorizes every minister of every religion to solemnize marriages. The bill would change this phrase to every member of the clergy of every religion.

The bill also provides that on and after its effective date, no civil unions could be established. The bill takes effect on the 60th day following enactment.

In addition, the bill repeals section 94 of P.L.2006, c.103 (C.37:1-36), which had established the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission. The function of the commission is to evaluate the operation and effectiveness of the enactment establishing civil unions, including the effect on same-sex couples, their children and other family members of being provided civil unions rather than marriage. With the enactment of this bill, the commission's function would be obviated.

Under the bill, partners who have previously established a civil union may apply for a marriage license and would receive the license immediately, without the usual 72-hour waiting period between application for, and issuance of, the license. Civil union partners would also not be charged any fees for the issuance of a marriage license.

The bill provides that civil union partners would have 60 days following enactment to move to dissolve their civil union pursuant to applicable law (set out in section 64 of P.L.2006, c.103 (C.2A:34-2.1)). If they do not do so within the 60-day period, the bill provides that these civil union partners would be deemed married, and that all civil union licenses and certificates of civil union issued on their behalf would be deemed to be marriage licenses and certificates of marriage.

The bill also provides that civil union partners may apply for a marriage license and solemnize their marriage at any time, without a waiting period for the license and without the payment of any fees. However, civil union partners who choose not to solemnize their marriages would nonetheless be deemed married as of the effective date of the act.

When Peter de Vries, 55, and Timothy Carter, 45, bought their dream house they knew it was beside a fire hall, but figured they'd get used to the occasional noise from the sirens as the volunteer firefighters raced to a blaze.

What they hadn't counted on was the homophobic attitude at the the North End Firehouse once the crew realized the new neighbors were gay.

In their suit de Vries and Carter alleged harassment, discrimination, retaliation, negligence and violation of state civil rights laws.

It named the fire department, the town, the police department, Fire Chief Frank Walters, Town Administrator Anthony Iacono, Mayor Dennis Elwell and 30 unnamed individuals as defendants.

In one incident firefighters were having a "boisterous" party outside the fire hall. The couple asked them to quiet down and the firefighters retaliated by throwing rocks at their house and issuing death threats to the men, according to the suit.

Complaints to the town went unanswered the suit said, and the couple eventually sold the house and moved out of town.

It was a mob attack and then the town government gathered around to protect the perpetrators, the couple's attorney, Neil Mullin, told the Star-Ledger.

Mullin told the paper that he will refer the case to the state Attorney General's Office and to the U.S. Attorney's Office for a possible criminal obstruction case.

Attorneys for the town have declined to comment on the jury ruling and there could be an appeal.

In Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415 (2006), the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated marriage equality to all consenting couples in the State. The court held that denying rights and benefits to same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee of Article I, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. The court held that to comply with this constitutional mandate, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure which would provide, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples. The Legislature first responded to Lewis v. Harris by enacting P.L.2006, c.103 (C.37:1-28 et al.), which established same-sex civil unions.

The bill's findings and declarations provide that civil marriage is a legal institution recognized by the State in order to promote stable relationships and to protect individuals who are in those relationships. The institution of marriage also provides important protections for the families of those who are married, including not only children or other dependents, but also members of their extended families.

In addition, the bill's findings and declarations provide that the Legislature has an interest in encouraging stable relationships, and that it is the intent of the Legislature in enacting the bill to end the pernicious practice of marriage discrimination in New Jersey.

Under the bill, marriage would be defined as the legally recognized union of two consenting persons in a committed relationship. The bill provides that whenever the term marriage occurs or the term man, woman, husband or wife occurs in the context of marriage or any reference is made thereto in any law, statute, rule, regulation or order, the same shall be deemed to mean or refer to the union of two persons pursuant to the bill.

The bill provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that the bill be interpreted consistently with the guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and of Article I, paragraph 4 of the New Jersey Constitution.

The bill specifically provides that no member of the clergy of any religion authorized to solemnize marriage and no religious society, institution or organization in this State would be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by Article I, paragraph 4 of the New Jersey Constitution.

In addition, the bill updates language in current law concerning the authority to solemnize marriages, set out in R.S.37:1-13. Currently, this section of law authorizes every minister of every religion to solemnize marriages. The bill would change this phrase to every member of the clergy of every religion.

The bill also provides that on and after its effective date, no civil unions could be established. The bill takes effect on the 60th day following enactment.

In addition, the bill repeals section 94 of P.L.2006, c.103 (C.37:1-36), which had established the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission. The function of the commission is to evaluate the operation and effectiveness of the enactment establishing civil unions, including the effect on same-sex couples, their children and other family members of being provided civil unions rather than marriage. With the enactment of this bill, the commission's function would be obviated.

Under the bill, partners who have previously established a civil union may apply for a marriage license and would receive the license immediately, without the usual 72-hour waiting period between application for, and issuance of, the license. Civil union partners would also not be charged any fees for the issuance of a marriage license.

The bill provides that civil union partners would have 60 days following enactment to move to dissolve their civil union pursuant to applicable law (set out in section 64 of P.L.2006, c.103 (C.2A:34-2.1)). If they do not do so within the 60-day period, the bill provides that these civil union partners would be deemed married, and that all civil union licenses and certificates of civil union issued on their behalf would be deemed to be marriage licenses and certificates of marriage.

The bill also provides that civil union partners may apply for a marriage license and solemnize their marriage at any time, without a waiting period for the license and without the payment of any fees. However, civil union partners who choose not to solemnize their marriages would nonetheless be deemed married as of the effective date of the act.

Friday's decision is a victory for Janet Jenkins, who entered a civil union with Lisa Miller in Vermont in 2000. Two years later, Miller gave birth to a daughter conceived through artificial insemination. The women later split up, and their civil union was dissolved.

Since then Janet Jenkins has been battling her former partner in both Vermont and Virginia for visitation rights to the child.

We are thrilled for Janet—at the end of the day this case is about being a mother to her daughter, said attorney Greg Nevins of Lambda Legal which represented Jenkins.

The Virginia Supreme Court's decision upheld the law and we are extremely pleased.

The little girl named Isabelle was conceived through artificial insemination to Lisa Miller-Jenkins. At the time she was in a relationship with Janet Miller-Jenkins which had been formalized by a civil union in Vermont where they resided.

When the relationship between the two women soured and they split up, a judge in Vermont gave Janet Miller-Jenkins temporary visitation rights with the child.

Miller fled with her daughter to Virginia which has some of the most anti-gay legislation in the country. She then declared she was no longer a lesbian, hired a conservative Christian law firm, the Liberty Counsel, and went to court in Virginia seeking sole custody of the child.

Jenkins fought the application on the grounds that the case was already before the court in Vermont.

But, Fredrick Virginia judge John R. Prosser ruled that since the mother resided in Virginia, a Virginia court would hear the case.  Subsequently Prosser ruled that Lisa Miller-Jenkins was the sole parent and that Janet Miller-Jenkins is nothing more a friend to the child.

In 2006 the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled that the state of Vermont has jurisdiction in the case, and threw out Prosser's ruling. The Appeals Court ruling was upheld by the Virginia Supreme Court.

Last year the Vermont Supreme Court unanimously concluded that under well-established laws designed to protect children and families the Vermont Family Court properly ordered visitation between Janet and her daughter.

Liberty Counsel appealed to the US Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case.

The conservative law practice representing Miller then asked the Virginia high court to invalidate the Vermont ruling on the basis that Miller lives in Virginia which does not recognize same-sex cop-parenting.

Today's ruling allows the appeals court decision to stand.

I'm relieved that this tug of war with my daughter is over, said Jenkins. This has been a very long four years. My daughter and I need some time to be together —she needs her other mom.

This chapter discusses the entire process of entering a civil union, including determining whether you and your partner are eligible or even need to enter into a civil union in this State, how to obtain a license, and how to formalize the civil union.

Eligibility

Before you decide to enter into a civil union, you and your partner need to determine if you are eligible to do so. As part of its decision in the 2006 marriage case, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that

[i]f the State proceeds with [civil unions], it cannot make entry into a same-sex civil union any more difficult than it is for heterosexual couples to enter the state of marriage. It may, however, regulate that scheme similarly to marriage and, for instance, restrict civil unions based on age and consanguinity and prohibit polygamous relationships. Lewis v. Harris

Thus, the requirements for entering into a civil union and the requirements for entering a marriage in New Jersey are identical. These eligibility requirements are clearly set out in the civil union law and parallel the requirements for marriage. This section should help you decide if you are eligible and, if you are not, help you understand how you can correct some of the more common problems.

Eligibility Requirements

To be eligible to enter into a legally recognized civil union in New Jersey, you and your partner must meet all of the following criteria, prior to or at the time you obtain your civil union license

• You may not be a party to another civil union, domestic partnership or marriage in New Jersey.
• You must both be of the same gender.
• You must both be at least 18 years of age or, if one partner is a minor, that partner's parents or legal guardian must give written consent. See Age Requirements, below, for more information.
• You and your partner may not be closely related. See Prohibited Civil Unions, below, for more information.

See Sections 3, 6 and 10 in the Civil Union Bill for the exact requirements.

Unlike domestic partnership, there is no residency requirement. Thus, non-residents may enter into a civil union in New Jersey. However, if you and your partner are non-residents and do not intend to live in New Jersey, the benefits of a civil union (and the obligations) will not be available to you unless you live in one of the states or foreign jurisdictions that currently recognize civil unions. Furthermore, if you and your partner decided to dissolve your civil union, one of you will be required to become a resident of New Jersey for at least one year before you can file for dissolution.

If you are in a civil union, domestic partnership or marriage

If you are in a civil union, domestic partnership or marriage with someone other than your intended spouse, you must dissolve your prior relationship, even if it was formed in another state or foreign jurisdiction. To understand this requirement, you must first understand what same-gender relationships are now recognized in New Jersey.

In February 2007, the New Jersey Attorney General released an opinion in regard to the recognition of same-gender relationships entered in other jurisdictions. In this rather convoluted opinion, the Attorney General recommended that same-gender statutory relationships from other jurisdictions that most closely approximate a New Jersey civil union be recognized as civil unions, whereas those most closely approximating a New Jersey domestic partnership are recognized as a domestic partnership.

Based upon this analysis, civil unions established in Connecticut, New Hampshire or Vermont, and domestic partnerships established in California and Oregon, would be considered valid civil unions in New Jersey. In addition, the opinion recognizes similar same-gender relationships, other than same-gender marriages, as civil unions, including civil partnerships entered into in the United Kingdom.

The recognition of same-gender marriages entered elsewhere is murkier in New Jersey. According to the Attorney General's opinion, a same-gender marriage legally entered into in another jurisdiction, including Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, Belgium, South Africa and the Netherlands, would be considered valid but treated as a civil union. However, it also seems clear that the Legislature considered — and subsequently discarded — a prohibition on the recognition of same-gender marriages legally entered elsewhere and this is currently being tested. See Interstate Recognition of Marriages, elsewhere in this guide, for a more in-depth discussion of this topic.

All other state-sanctioned same-gender relationships are considered valid domestic partnerships. The Domestic Partnership Act seems to recognize registration in a local domestic partnership registry, such as New York City, Key West, and other municipal registries, as sufficient to form a New Jersey domestic partnership. However, this has never been tested in court and you should not rely on this recognition.

If you and your partner entered into a civil union elsewhere, or are in a legal relationship that is recognized in New Jersey as a civil union, you do not need to enter into a new civil union in this state (although you can undergo a reaffirmation of your civil union if you so choose). If you and your partner are currently in a domestic partnership, you do not need to terminate the domestic partnership; entering into a civil union automatically terminates your domestic partnership.

If you or your partner is in a domestic partnership with someone else, the domestic partnership must be formally terminated prior to applying for your civil union license. Unlike domestic partnership, however, there is no waiting period following the termination, and you may immediately thereafter enter into a civil union.

Prohibited civil unions

One requirement for entry into a civil union is that you and your partner must not be related. As in marriage, you may not enter a civil union with any of your ancestors or descendants, in particular, with a sister or brother, niece or nephew, uncle or aunt, whether they are of whole or half blood.

Same-gender couples only

Civil unions are limited to same-gender couples. As originally drafted, the limitation was that the parties must Be of the same sex and therefore excluded from the marriage laws of this State or any other state. However, in an amendment to the bill, the underlined language was deleted and the limitation now reads, Be of the same sex.

This prior limitation constituted a mini-DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) that would have acted to prevent recognition of same-gender marriages entered in other jurisdictions. While the Legislature was considering the civil union bill, Steven Goldstein (Garden State Equality), David Buckel (Lamda Legal), Laura Pople, and other activists successfully lobbied for the removal of this language. As a result, it appears that a same-gender marriage entered in a jurisdiction where such marriages are legal (such as Massachusetts or Canada) should be recognized as a marriage in New Jersey.

Age Requirements

As in marriage, both parties to a civil union in New Jersey must be at least 18 years of age in order to enter into a civil union. Thus, a minor may enter into a civil union with the written permission of his or her parents or guardian. This permission must be in the form of a written certification, executed in the presence of two witnesses, and delivered to the person issuing the civil union license. If a parent or guardian is mentally incompetent, their consent to the civil union is not required. Presumably, this requires the minor to supply proof of the incompetency when applying for the license.

There does not appear to be a lower age limit for a civil union or marriage in New Jersey. However, if a party is under the age of 16 years, the written parental consent must be submitted to a family court judge for written approval, which must be filed with the parental approval when applying for the civil union license.

If you and your partner are both ages 62 or older, you are still entitled to enter into a domestic partnership in New Jersey. Registration in a domestic partnership will provide you with a limited subset of the rights and responsibilities of a civil union.

Obtaining A Civil Union License

No more than 30 days before you intend to have a civil union performed in New Jersey, you must apply for a civil union license from a licensing officer, wait 72-hours, then pick up the license and deliver it to the person who will officiate over your civil union. The 72-hour waiting period can be waived in some circumstances. The license, once you have obtained it, is good for 30 days. See Figure 1: Application for License.

Unlike domestic partnerships, in which application and registration are a one-step process, you are not in a civil union until the officiant signs the license. Simply obtaining the license will not do.

Application Process

In order to obtain your license, both of you must appear together before the appropriate licensing officer, along with at least one witness who knows you both. The licensing officer will require you to subscribe and swear to an oath regarding the legality of your proposed civil union. Upon completion of this process, and submission of the application fee, (currently $28), you, your intended spouse and your witness will be required to swear an oath or affirmation that the information you have provided is correct, then sign the application in the presence of the registrar.

Unless you have obtained a waiver, or you have applied for reaffirmation of a civil union, you must wait 72 hours (3 days) from the time you file your application, after which one or the other of you must return to pick up the license and deliver it to the officiant. The license issued to you is valid for 30 days, after which it expires. If your license expires, you will be required to file a new application, including paying the application fee.

If you intend to have both a civil ceremony and a religious ceremony, you need to tell the licensing officer this information so that he or she can issue a license in duplicate, marking one as issued for civil marriage or civil union ceremony and the other as issued for religious marriage or civil union ceremony.

Where to Obtain Your License

You apply for your civil union license at your local registrar, which in large cities is generally the city clerk. In smaller cities, you apply to the person who is designated as the deputy of the State registrar.

For a list of local registrars, see www.state.nj.us/health/vital/regbycnty.shtml.

If you are a New Jersey resident

If either (or both) of you is a New Jersey resident, you must apply for your license in the municipality in which you live. If both of you share the same New Jersey residence, you have no choice but to apply with the local registrar in your municipality. If you and your partner currently have separate New Jersey residences, you may apply with the local registrar in the municipality in which either of you resides. The license is valid anywhere in New Jersey.

Unlike domestic partnerships, you cannot apply for a license in any municipality in the State. This has caused some couples to hesitate, particularly if they live in a small town and are concerned about revealing that they are gay or lesbian. This privacy concern has been raised to the Civil Union Review Commission, which may address the issue in a future report. Unfortunately, for couples who are concerned about this, there is only one other solution: they may choose to travel to Vermont, Connecticut or New Hampshire in order to enter into a civil union that will be recognized here in New Jersey.

If you are a nonresident

Unlike domestic partnerships, nonresidents of New Jersey can enter into a civil union. If neither of you is a resident of New Jersey, then you must first decide where you intend to have the civil union performed and then apply for your license in that municipality. The civil union license for non-residents is only valid in the municipality where it is issued. If you decide to have your civil union performed elsewhere in New Jersey, you will need to obtain a new license in that municipality.

Waiving the waiting period

In certain circumstances, you may seek a waiver of the 72-hour waiting period. In order to do so, you must obtain an order from the Superior Court judge waiving all or any part of the 72-hour period. In order to obtain such a waiver, you must show satisfactory proof of an emergency. The most common reason for obtaining this reason is that there is some form of medical emergency, for example, your partner is severely ill or a parent or other family member is dying. If you obtain such an order, it must be submitted at the time you apply for the license.

What to Bring

When you apply for your license, you need to bring the following:

• Your birth certificate, driver's license, passport or a state-issued ID;
• Proof of residency (although you are not required to be a New Jersey resident);
• Your social security number;
• A witness who is at least 18 years of age and knows both of you; and
• The $28 application fee.

If you were previously married, in a civil union or in a registered domestic partnership (with someone other than your intended spouse,) you must bring proof that the prior relationship has ended. If you were divorced or had a prior marriage annulled, had a prior civil union dissolved or annulled, or have had a domestic partnership terminated, you must bring a certified copy of your divorce/dissolution decree or your annulment documents. If your prior spouse is deceased, you must bring a copy of his or her death certificate.

If any documents are in a foreign language, you must provide a certified English translation.

To apply for reaffirmation of your civil union, you must also provide proof of your prior civil union.

Solemnizing Your Civil Union

Solemnization takes place in a civil union ceremony, equivalent to a marriage ceremony. Although a civil union ceremony can be as elaborate as any wedding can be, in its most basic form, it requires you and your partner and an eligible officiant to sign the civil union license in the presence of witnesses, after which the officiant is responsible for delivering the license to the appropriate registrar.

If you are a New Jersey resident, your civil union can be solemnized anywhere in this State, regardless of where you obtained your license. For non-residents, on the other hand, the civil union must be solemnized in the same jurisdiction where you obtained your license.

Who May Officiate

Any individual who is statutorily authorized to solemnize a marriage can solemnize your civil union. Specifically, any of the following can conduct the ceremony:

• Judges – any judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, a federal district court judge, a United States magistrate, municipal court judge, Superior Court judge, tax court judge.
• Retired Judges – any retired judge of the Superior Court, Tax Court, the former County Court, the former County Juvenile and Domestic Relations, or the former County District Court, so long as they have resigned in good standing.
• County Surrogate.
• County Clerk.
• Mayor of any New Jersey municipality, or any deputy mayor, if authorized by the mayor.
• Chairman of any township committee or village president of the State.
• Every minister, rabbi or religious leader of any religion.

Religious societies (such as the Society of Friends), religious institutions or organizations in the State may also join partners in a civil union according to the rules and customs of the society, institution or organization.

Note that, according to an opinion of the Attorney General, issued shortly before the civil union bill went into effect, a minister, rabbi or other religious leader, and a religious society, institution or organization is not required to solemnize a civil union, even if they will solemnize a marriage.

However, public officials, including mayors, surrogates, county clerks and others may only refuse to officiate over a civil union if they also refuse to officiate over a marriage. Initially, several mayors stated that they would not solemnize civil unions for religious reasons. The Attorney General's opinion clarified that any civil officer who refused to solemnize civil unions but continued to conduct marriages would be in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Civil Union Ceremony

Most officiants who are willing to conduct a civil union have adapted the standard marriage ceremony, usually consisting of vows, or other formal affirmations made by the parties. The officiant is authorized to administer oaths to the parties, and may require them to provide true answers to any questions he or she may ask in order to determine if there are any impediments to the civil union.

At the conclusion of the ceremony, the officiant will sign the license and subscribe the date and place of the civil union, after which two witnesses who were present at the civil union ceremony must also sign the license.

Following the ceremony and the signatures, the officiant will transmit the license and original certificate of civil union to the State registrar. A copy of the certificate is filed and retained by the local registrar and you and your partner will receive a copy of the certificate. The officiant retains the remaining copy.

At the conclusion of the ceremony, you and your partner are formally joined in a civil union, and your copy of the certificate is your proof of that.

Reaffirmation of an Existing Civil Union

As previously discussed, if you and your partner are already in a civil union, or are in a relationship that is considered equivalent to a civil union in New Jersey, you do not need to go through the same process here in New Jersey in order to receive the benefits of the civil union laws.

However, you may optionally undergo a reaffirmation of your civil union here in New Jersey, which entails a shortened process for formalizing your civil union in this State. Reaffirmation, which is also available for marriage, allows you to skip the 72-hour waiting period and immediately obtain your marriage license. You will still have to have an eligible individual officiate over the civil union ceremony and this solemnization must be done within 30 days after you obtain the license.

The license issued for reaffirmation of a civil union will be specifically marked as such, with the language Issued for reaffirmation of a civil union — originally entered into a civil union to same mate at (state place) on (state date). This license is immediately issued at the time of application and can be immediately solemnized.

Reaffirmation should be considered if you and your partner have been married in Massachusetts, Canada, or some other jurisdiction that allows same-gender marriage, since it would extend recognition of your relationship to states that recognize civil unions but not same-gender marriages (including New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont and California). Because Massachusetts and Canada do not recognize civil unions, reaffirmation of your civil union will have no affect on your marriage, and you will be viewed as married in those jurisdictions.

Reaffirmation should also be considered if you have entered into a legal relationship that is equivalent to a civil union in New Jersey, such as a civil partnership in the United Kingdom. Some states that recognize civil unions may not recognize these equivalent foreign relationships. Reaffirming your civil union confers New Jersey's blessing on your relationship and should be recognized in other civil union states.

Certificate of Civil Union

Once your license has been signed, you will receive a copy, which is your temporary proof of your civil union. The officiant will file the license and certificate with the local registrar of the municipality where the civil union was performed.

You and your partner should keep your certificate of civil union with your other valuable papers, such as in a fireproof safe or a safe deposit box.

Obtaining a Copy of Your Certificate

You may obtain additional certified copies of your civil union certificate from the local registrar where the civil union was performed, or by filing an application with the State Bureau of Vital Statistics and Registration in Trenton, New Jersey. See Application for a Certified Copy of a Vital Record.

In order to obtain a certified copy, you must be able to provide the following information:

• Full name of both partners;
• Municipality where the civil union was performed; and
• Exact date of the civil union.

You must also provide proof of your identity by providing a current, valid photo driver's license or state-issued ID or a non-photo license or ID and an alternate form of ID with current address. If you do not have a driver's license or state-issued ID, you must provide at least two of the following items, at least one of which must have your current address:

• Automobile registration and/or insurance card;
• Passport;
• Voter registration;
• Green card or immigrant visa;
• Federal or county ID;
• School ID;
• Court documents;
• W-2 for current or previous tax year; or
• Utility or bank statements (must be within the last 90 days).

If you are requesting a certified copy you must provide proof of your relationship to the persons listed on the certificate, and you must prove that you are one of the following:

• The subject of the record;
• The subject's parent, legal guardian or legal representative;
• The subject's spouse/civil union partner;
• The subject's child, grandchild or sibling, if of legal age;
• A state or federal agency for official purposes; or
• Pursuant to a court order.

For more information, see www.state.nj.us/health/vital/tips.shtml.

Making Changes to Your Certificate

Although you should check your civil union license carefully before you sign it and file it with the local registrar, mistakes do happen. If there are any corrections that need to be made to your civil union certificate after it is filed, you must first obtain a copy of your certificate then submit the changes to the State registrar.

Changing Your Name

You and your civil union partner may want to change your name to reflect your new status as a couple. Unlike domestic partnership, the civil union law provides you and your partner with the same right to change your name as an opposite-gender married couple. Thus, you and your partner may choose to use the same last name or, like many couples, you may want to use a hyphenated name.

Changing your name as a result of your civil union is a two-step process. First, you should change your name on all state records. Second, you should change your name on federal records and on any formal records in other states, such as professional licenses.

Changing your name on state records

Your certified civil union certificate is all the proof you need to change your name on state records. You should file a copy with the New Jersey Department of Treasury and the Bureau of Vital Statistics at the following addresses:

To change your name on your driver's license, you may present your certificate at any Motor Vehicle Agency.

Changing your name on federal records

Unfortunately, as a result of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), most federal agencies will not accept a civil union certificate (or, for that matter, a same-gender marriage certificate), as proof of a name change. In particular, the U.S. State Department has issued a directive specifically stating that a civil union or same-gender marriage certificate is not acceptable proof of a name change for obtaining a new passport. In order to change your passport, you will need to provide a formal judgment of name change from a state court.

Not all federal agencies, however, have adopted this policy. In particular, the Social Security Administration has chosen to accept a New Jersey civil union certificate as proof of a name change. To obtain a new social security card in your new name, you must go to your nearest Social Security Administration office with a copy of your certificate and at least one other form of identification. Note, however, that this simply changes your social security records; it does not make you eligible for your partner's social security benefits.

Changing your name on other state's records

If you and your partner are New Jersey residents, it is unlikely that you will need to file a name change in another state. However, if you hold a professional license that is registered in another state, such as a law license or medical license, or if you and your partner are non-residents of New Jersey, you may need to register your name change in other states.

The procedures for registering your name change in other states will depend upon two things: whether that state recognizes your civil union or, if it does not, whether it will accept your civil union certificate as proof of the name change.

If you need to register your name change in Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, California, or Oregon, you should be able to use your New Jersey civil union certificate as proof without further trouble. However, in states such as Pennsylvania, Delaware or New York, or other states that do not recognize civil unions (including Massachusetts), you should check with the particular agency to determine whether they will accept your certificate as proof of the name change. If they do not, you will need to obtain a formal judgment of name change, either in New Jersey or in that state.

Notify third parties

You should also remember to notify your employer of your name change, if you choose to do so, as well as notify others, such as your library, or anyone else you want to notify of your name change. If you have a professional license and you want to use your civil union name professionally, you should contact your state's professional licensing agency.

Obtaining a formal judgment of name change

At this time, to obtain a formal judgment of name change in New Jersey, you must file a formal proceeding with the family court in your county of residence.

To change your name this way, you must tell the court in a verified complaint what your name is, what you want to change your name to, and why you want to change it. You must also inform the court if you have ever been convicted of a crime, or if you have criminal charges pending against you. You must also prepare an Order Fixing Date of Hearing, a proposed Form of Judgment, and a Civil Case Information Statement (CIS). The cost is $200. You may file the change for you and your partner, as well as all other family members, with a single application.

You must file the original and at least one copy of these papers, along with the check made payable to the Treasurer, State of New Jersey, either in person or by mail, with the Clerk of the Family Part in your county of residence. If you file by mail, you must enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope. The Clerk will return your copy to you and will set the date for the hearing and will stamp the papers with a docket number. This docket number must be used for all correspondence with the court.

If you have pending criminal charges or delinquent charges in New Jersey, there are additional procedures that you are required to follow, and you should check with the clerk.

At least two weeks before the hearing date, you must have the Order Fixing Date of Hearing published in the newspaper chosen by the judge. The newspaper will be able to advise you of the form of this notice. Once the newspaper has published the required notice, it will provide you with an affidavit of publication. You must send the original of this to the court. After the hearing, you will be required to publish the final judgment in the same newspaper within 20 days following the entry of judgment. The newspaper will provide you with an affidavit of publication, which you must then file with the court.

Finally, you must order a certified copy of the Final Judgment by mail or in person. Although the court will provide you with one certified copy at no additional charge, you should obtain additional certified copies. You must file certified copies of the final judgment with the New Jersey Department of Treasury and the Registrar of Vital Statistics. You should also obtain additional copies if you need to file a certified copy with any federal agency or with another state.

The State judiciary site provides a pro se kit for name changes, if you choose to do it yourself. For more information, see www.judiciary.state.nj.us/prose/10551_namechg_adult.pdf.

The rehearing petitions were denied by a 4-3 vote. Chief Justice Ronald George, and Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar, and Carlos Moreno voted to deny rehearing. Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin, and Carol Corrigan would have granted rehearing.

The order further specified that the decision of the court filed on May 15, 2008, will become final on June 16, 2008, at 5 p.m.

The full text of the order is available here.

If you own your home as joint tenants, you each own an undivided equal share of your residence. Furthermore, that equal share must exist from the time you take joint title to the property and must continue throughout the time you own this property. If you are in a civil union and you own your home as tenants by the entirety, you each own an undivided 100% share of your residence.

But what happens if one partner paid most or all of the down payment or other costs at closing? And what if one partner contributes more to the mortgage payment than the other? How do partners account for repairs during the ownership of their home or other costs associated with ownership? What if one partner can't afford to contribute any cash but performs work on the home? And what if one partner owned the residence entirely and then decides to put the title in both partners' names?

For heterosexual married couples, these issues are irrelevant. However, for same-sex couples, even if you are in a civil union, each of these scenarios can trigger federal important income tax, gift tax and death tax issues.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law in 1999 by then-President Clinton. At the time it was passed, much of the discussion about this law focused on the part of the law that allowed the states to refuse recognition of same-gender marriages legally entered into in other states. But the really insidious effect of DOMA is that it defined terms like marriage and spouse throughout all federal laws and regulations, limiting these terms to heterosexual married couples. Among other inequalities, this means that same-gender couples, even if in a civil union, domestic partnership or marriage, are denied the exemptions and exclusions granted to heterosexual married couples under the federal tax laws and regulations.

The most important of these exemptions and exclusions is the federal gift tax exclusion. Each person is entitled to a lifetime gift tax exclusion of $1,000,000, which is composed of the aggregate of all reportable gifts you make in your lifetime. You do not have to pay gift tax on these reportable gifts until your aggregate of all gifts exceeds $1 million. However, you do have to file an annual gift tax return with your annual income tax return if you have made any reportable gifts during the year.

The key, here, is reportable gifts. Certain gifts are excluded from this reporting requirement. The most important exclusion is the $12,000 annual exclusion. You can make as many gifts of up to $12,000 to as many persons as you want each year, regardless of their relationship to you, without having to report the gift on a gift tax return. So, for example, if you give your partner $12,000 in 2008, you do not need to report the gift on your 2009 gift tax return. But, if you give your partner $12,001 in 2008, you have exceeded the exclusion and the $1 excess is a reportable gift.

For married couples, there is an unlimited exclusion for gifts between spouses. As a result, married couples never have to report these gifts and these interspousal gifts never count toward the lifetime exclusion. Unfortunately, because of DOMA, same-sex couples are denied this important benefit and must report gifts to their partners in excess of $12,000.

So what constitutes a gift that is potentially reportable? Well, clearly giving your partner $12,000 in cash is a gift. But so is a gift of jewelry or other material things. If you take your partner on a vacation and you pay for all or part of it, you've made a gift. Other things that the IRS considers gifts include no-interest or low-interest loans, unequal contributions to household expenses or joint bank accounts, or anything you transfer ownership of to someone for less than full market value. To the extent these accumulated gifts of cash and kind exceed $12,000 in a calendar year, you have made a reportable gift.

The most common gifts same-sex partners make involve their home. If one of you contributed less to the down payment when you purchased your home, and/or if one partner pays more of the expenses and upkeep of your home, then that partner has made a gift to the other. If the total contributed during any one year exceeds $12,000, then the excess constitutes a reportable gift.

The best way to avoid gift tax problems involving the joint purchase of a home is to turn the difference into a loan. If one partner is contributing most or all of the down payment, he or she can take back a promissory note in an amount that equalizes the down payment. The interest rate must be a fair market interest rate (otherwise, the lower interest rate constitutes a gift). You can make the length of the loan and the repayment terms quite flexible. For example, you could require that the loan be repaid at the time the house is sold, or within a specific time period. If one partner has the down payment but the other can afford to pay a larger share of the mortgage, the excess payment can be credited to the loan. Whatever you choose to do, the loan should be in writing and, preferably recorded in some way.

There are many ways to creatively handle the gift tax issues involving your home. The key is that you and your partner own an equal share of your jointly-owned home (and can prove it, if necessary). Taking the time to do this right today will help ensure that your family home doesn't get saddled with unexpected tax problems.

Though the directive was issued by Mr. Paterson's counsel two weeks ago and was soon made known to gay-rights advocates and some lawmakers, the decision became broadly publicized only on Wednesday evening and apparently caught almost everyone else in Albany — Republicans and Democrats alike — by surprise.

At a news conference on Thursday, the Senate majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno, a Republican who is opposed to same-sex marriage, said he had received no advance word of Mr. Paterson's proposal. Senate Republicans are not scheduled to meet as a group until next week, but Mr. Bruno said he would be consulting with lawyers to study constitutional questions raised by Mr. Paterson's directive, suggesting that legal action was a possibility.

We'll take a look, Mr. Bruno said. We will make some judgments because we think that's the important issue that is going on."

Some of Mr. Bruno's fellow Republicans were more outspoken, saying they felt ambushed by Mr. Paterson, who they said had promised to govern more collaboratively than his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer.

Serphin R. Maltese, a Republican senator from Queens, said he was puzzled by Mr. Paterson's decision to move unilaterally on the same-sex marriage issue with only weeks left in the legislative session and other complex measures, like aid to homeowners who face foreclosure, remaining on the table.

We're going into a month when bipartisanship and cooperation is important, Mr. Maltese said. And this is at best divisive and distracting. He added, The least that should have been done is to wait until we are out of session.

Several people said Mr. Paterson's directive reminded them of Mr. Spitzer's executive order last fall telling state and county departments of motor vehicles to allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. That order was also issued abruptly and without forewarning to legislative leaders. The public outcry over the issue was so great that Mr. Spitzer was forced to rescind the policy.

We had one governor that governed by fiat, and that didn't work out too well for him, said Senator Martin J. Golden, a Brooklyn Republican.

Mr. Golden and other Republicans said angry constituents had inundated them with phone calls. Leaders of some religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage said that they had also received complaints, but that they had not yet had time to coordinate any legal challenge. In the meantime, those advocates say, they are beginning a public campaign to pressure the governor to reverse the policy.

In a statement, Richard E. Barnes, the executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, said, No single politician or court or legislature should attempt to redefine the very building block of our society in a way that alters its entire meaning and purpose.

For now, a lawsuit seems more likely to come from citizens' groups than from the Senate itself, said the Rev. Duane Motley, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, an organization of evangelical churches and other groups.

Some of the attorneys who have spoken to us feel that the governor is overstepping his authority as chief executive, so you would sue on that basis, he said.

Michael Long, the head of the state Conservative Party, which has endorsed many Republican officials, said the governor's directive was outrageous. The situation was no different from the licensing issue, Mr. Long added, and he hoped for the same outcome. If the Legislature reacts, if the public reacts, then I hope the governor will reconsider. If he doesn't, we will take every stop possible to make sure he does, Mr. Long said.

For Republicans, of course, the collapse of the proposal to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, which the public overwhelmingly opposed, was a clear political winner. But New Yorkers are far more supportive of gay rights generally and some polls show them more evenly divided on the question of same-sex marriage.

Mr. Bruno himself has expressed support for gay civil unions, though not for same-sex marriage. Last year, the Democratic-controlled Assembly passed legislation that would legalize gay marriage, but the Republican-controlled Senate has declined to hold a vote on the legislation.

Mr. Motley said his allies were satisfied to keep the bill in limbo rather than urge Senate Republicans to vote on the matter.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.

The measure would amend the state constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. It is similar to gay marriage bans that have been adopted in 26 other states.

This signifies the fact that California voters really do favor and will come out to vote for the protection of historic marriage, said Ron Prentice, executive director of ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition of religious and social conservative groups behind the initiative.

In response to the court's May 15 ruling, California public health officials already have amended marriage license applications to read Party A and Party B instead of bride and groom. Local officials have been told to start issuing the revised licenses to same-sex couples on June 17.

Gay men and lesbians would still be able to get married between then and the election, even with the initiative pending, unless the court agrees to stay its decision until after Nov. 4, as the amendment's sponsors have requested.

If the marriages proceed during the next five months, it is unclear whether they would be nullified if the amendment passes. Some legal scholars have said the state Supreme Court might get called on again to settle that question.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, said gay marriage advocates have already launched a campaign to defeat the measure.

There is just so much at stake, now, in terms of what kind of state we are going to live in and what values we are going to uphold, Kendell said.

To qualify for the ballot, the measure needed 694,354 petition signatures, an amount equal to 8 percent of the votes cast during the last governor's race.

Proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in late April, and county clerks determined the measure qualified by verifying the validity of 3 percent of the signatures they received, according to Bowen.

Recent polls have found California voters are about evenly split on whether gay couples should be allowed to marry.

For years, gay rights advocates have sought recognition for same-sex marriages so couples could share family health care plans, receive tax breaks by filing jointly, enjoy stronger adoption rights and inherit property.

Many or all of those rights would now appear to be available to New Yorkers who legally wed same-sex partners in other states and countries, according to the memo sent earlier this month from the governor's counsel. Agencies have until June 30 to report back to the counsel on how, specifically, the directive will change existing state benefits and services for gay couples.

This is a milestone in the fight for fairness in New York, Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. Couples in New York who have never known true security for their families will be officially entitled to treatment by our state government that respects their rights.

The Rev. Duane Motley, director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, which has lobbied against the legalization of gay marriage, declined to comment on Paterson's directive. State Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Massachusetts is currently the only U.S. state that recognizes same-sex marriage, but its residency requirements would bar New Yorkers from marrying there. New York residents could instead flock to California, where gay couples will be able to wed beginning June 17 — unless that state's Supreme Court decides to stay its own ruling same-sex gay marriage. Upon their return home, in the eyes of the state, their unions would be no different from those of their heterosexual neighbors.

Gay couples could also travel outside the country to marry in Canada or one of the other nations where same-sex marriage is legal.

The move by Paterson's administration does not legalize same-sex marriage in New York. The state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, has said it can only be legalized by the Legislature, which failed to pass a proposed measure last year.

The memo, one of the strongest steps the state can take short of action by the Legislature, cited a Feb. 1 ruling by a New York Appellate Division court in a case involving a woman wed in Canada who was denied benefits by her partner's employer.

The appellate judges determined that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage. The state Legislature "may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad," the ruling said. Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York.

In a video shown Saturday at the Empire State Pride Agenda's spring dinner, the governor said he directed the move as a strong step toward marriage equality right here in our state.

We're aware that our advocacy is incomplete and we will keep trying until people who love each other and want to get married, regardless of who they are, have that opportunity, Paterson said in the video, which was posted on the gay rights organization's Web site.

Paterson spokeswoman Erin Duggan said the May 14 memo is intended to guide the actions of state agencies. It states that agencies must change policies and regulations to make sure spouse, husband and wife are clearly understood to include gay couples.

The memo says failure to include gay marriages in the dispensing of state services such as health care benefits could violate state human rights law. The agencies could face sanctions for any violations, it warns.

The agency changes can be instituted through internal memos or changes in regulations and would not require legislative action, Paterson counsel David Nocenti said in the memo, first reported by The New York Times.

Former Gov. Eliot Spitzer and Paterson, his running mate for lieutenant governor, campaigned in 2006 on a platform that included bringing equal rights to gays. Spitzer, however, said the state constitution didn't sanction gay marriage.

Last year, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in New York was approved by the Democrat-led Assembly, but the Republican-led Senate hasn't taken it up.

The court reserved judgment in the case, and for the past 12 months gay and lesbian couples in the state have been waiting for a ruling, having to make do with civil unions that most LGBT advocates say are insufficient.

Unlike California, where the state Supreme Court has a deadline of 90 days to deliver a ruling following oral arguments, there is no similar requirement on the Connecticut.

The Connecticut couples seeking the right to marry are represented by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based legal group that won same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

In arguments before the high court last year, GLAD attorney Bennett Klein told the court that civil unions create a separate but equal situation in which same-sex couples become second class citizens.

What the state calls something does matter, attorney Bennett Klein said.

The only possible reason that the legislature denied marriage here and created a separate institution just for one minority group was because they thought marriage meant something.

Klein argued that denying same-sex couples access to marriage violates the state constitution in two ways: under the equal protection provision and the clause guaranteeing due process.

The state Attorney General's staff argued that the landmark civil-union statute is sufficient. The Attorney General's lawyer told the court that the rights and benefits same-sex couples have are identical to those opposite-sex couples have in the state.

The court has given no indication why it is delaying a ruling. Some LGBT advocates believe the justices want to legalize gay marriage but have been reluctant to make Connecticut the second state after Massachusetts to strike down bans on same-sex marriages. The ruling in California on Thursday now will make that easier they argue.

In March gay and lesbian couples told state lawmakers that civil unions are not working and they provided evidence that the intentions of the law are not being followed.

Civil unions became legal in Connecticut in 2005. The law accords same-sex couples most of the rights and obligations Connecticut gives married couples. But after more than two years since the law was passed many businesses, hospitals and government agencies still do not recognize them.

The legislature's Judiciary Committee held hearings and was told bluntly that the only thing that would work is to amend the law to provide for full marriage

Nevertheless, state lawmakers appear reluctant to pass marriage equalization legislation.