[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.

[Logophile]

Well, I'm still trying to read this thing. It's 90 pages They can call it marriage if they wish, or anything else. My GUESS is that they will call it a civil union.

Does it really matter what they call it?

[randita]

They can call it marriage if they wish, or anything else. My GUESS is that they will call it a civil union.

If so, will 2 heterosexuals who don't want to get "married" be able to create a "civil union"? What about just two friends, either of the same or different sexes - one of whom has a job with nice benefits be able to create a "civil union"? What about three people?

What will children of "civil unions" be called? And what laws will be need to be made to dissolve such "unions"?

The complexities are staggering.

I'm not in favor or calling anything other than a union between a man and a woman marriage. But I'm just envisioning the Pandora's box the NJSC just opened.