Don't want to move too quickly

New Jersey's civil unions are indeed before a state court. Back in 2006 the state Supremes mandated equal treatment of gays and the legislature solved that with civil unions, declaring them equal to marriage. But since federal marriage benefits are only available to couples actually married, civil unions are demonstrably not the same. Never mind (for now) that the public perception of words "marriage" and "civil union" are vastly different.

The issue before the court now is whether the evidence is so overwhelming that a ruling can be given without a trial. That's called a summary judgment. So the broad outlines of the arguments were laid out.

Assistant Attorney General Kevin Jespersen took the civil union side. The big Supreme Court ruling said federal benefits are only available to married couples. Jesperson argues that since New Jersey laws declare civil unions to be identical to marriage (see the note above about perception of words) then the feds should look at state law and say, yup, New Jersey says they're the same so we should treat them as married.

Lawrence Lustberg, arguing for our side, said you're not going to be able to convince a federal court to go along with you. Conservatives are so hot for states rights, well, this issue can be handled by the state.

Alas, the judge, Mary Jacobson, is concerned about moving too quickly. The New Jersey Supremes (and the case will be appealed) will want the full facts and what federal agencies are doing is still in flux. But don't we need just one federal agency that will treat married gay couples differently than non-married to have a case?