The New Jersey Supreme Court has gone the Vermont path respecting gay marriage -- equal benefits required, up to the legislature to decide how to do it, civil unions acceptable. Nice headnotes. As a judicial policy, this sort of thing appeals to me, though legislatively it is time for true equality.
The ruling notes "Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut" have laws comparable to the domestic partnership security NJ currently has. One sees a New England/Middle State trend, huh? Come on, NY! Anyway, the "majority" here suggests there is a middle path, giving the legislature a big role, and getting to say that "same sex marriage" isn't a "fundamental" right. This makes the NY opinion that much lamer.
As the NYT notes: "New Jersey’s highest court ruled on Wednesday that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples, but split [4-3] over whether their unions must be called marriage or could be known by another name, handing that question to the Legislature." The three (via an opinion authored by the Chief Justice, just like the dissent in the NY case) wanted to go further and apply equal marriage rights. So, really, the case was unanimous on the basic ruling of same sex "union" equality.
[Update: I suggested at first the NYT was more misleading or open to confusion than it really was. The article early on makes clear what the division is about, though some might misunderstand/spin the result to be a one vote ruling ala Massachusetts.]
As to the more forceful opinion, I agree: "Labels set people apart as surely as physical separation on a bus or in school facilities." "Marriage" ultimately cannot be equal to "civil union," and it won't be in practice. But, at this state of development, it is a credible major step to demand at least that. Due process and equality, clearly connected as underlined by the partial concurrence, develops over time. All the same, it also helps to have a few pushing it along. Thus, both opinions are valuable.
OTOH, I'm against allowing sex separate elementary and high schools -- the new Bush policy. My overall thought is that we need to live together; segregation is not the best way to assist that. A bit of experimentalization might be a good thing, but one has serious doubts. [See my comments to linked post.]