[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

It was a 4-3 decision. 4 judges ruled something not called marriage would be okay, as long as gays get the same benefits as heterosexuals. 3 judges thought it must be called marriage.

So it was unanimous on the issue of unions, just not on the issue of what to call it?

[conservative in nyc]

So it was unanimous on the issue of unions, just not on the issue of what to call it?

Well, I'm still trying to read this thing. It's 90 pages long. That's what it sounds like. The phrase "gay unions" (that I used in my made up title) might be misleading because the Legislature need not even call it that. They can call it marriage if they wish, or anything else. My GUESS is that they will call it a civil union.