New Jersey legislators look like they are planning to give gay couples in our state an unexpectedly quick holiday gift: a new civil unions law.

Although the Oct. 25 New Jersey Supreme Court ruling on same-sex unions gave the Legislature up to 180 days to pass a new law, legislators have moved with uncharacteristic speed to comply with the ruling. In fact, they have worked so fast — taking only 10 days to get it through both the Senate and Assembly committees and ready for a vote by the full Legislature — that both sides have been left wondering what the rush is. Lambda Legal, the gay rights advocacy group, said “the measure is moving too fast for justice to prevail.”

It could be that legislators want to dispose of the issue as quickly as possible, picking the furthest possible date from next year’s elections.

Whatever the reason, neither side of the debate is very happy about the bill.

On the one hand, conservative opponents bristle at even the suggestion of creating a legal relationship they believe should be reserved for the union between a man and a woman. State Sen. Gerald Cardinale (R-Dist. 39) from Bergen County had even proposed language to that effect, and continues to worry that the current language “discriminates against straight people.”

On the other hand, gay and lesbian groups are greeting the 63-page bill with lukewarm enthusiasm. It allows same-sex couples to register and claim all of the rights of heterosexual married couples. Unlike similar laws in Vermont and Connecticut, New Jersey’s version does not contain the obdurate language that a “marriage can only be between a man and a woman.” And, better yet, the new law would create a commission to study how well it is working — which will have the obvious benefit of calling public attention and pressure to any shortcomings in the new law.

And yet, while advocates for same-sex marriage acknowledge that the law will make New Jersey one of the few states to have taken even this progressive a step, they remain disappointed that it calls for something less than marriage in name. Is it merely semantics? Perhaps, but on this issue semantics have always meant everything. And, if the rights created are the same, advocates insist, why not call it what it is?

The answer is very simple. The votes are just not there in the Legislature, at least not in 2006. Nor it seems, are New Jerseyans comfortable with the idea of gay “marriage.” Recent polls conclude that they are more inclined to accept a “civil union.” A recent Quinnipiac University Poll showed support of civil unions at 60 percent, while only about 44 percent of voters liked the idea of allowing same-sex couples to “marry.”

Essentially, the poll concluded that we do not want gay marriage, but at the same time we oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, as has been the case in some more conservative states.

There will still be some interesting fireworks as the new law is implemented. For example, the pastor delivering the invocation at the opening of the state Senate session this week condemned gay marriage in his invocation. And he made no doubt of it, saying, “We curse the spirit that would come to bring about same-sex marriage…”

And already, conservative Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan has vowed to refuse to officiate at civil unions. Public officials are not permitted to refuse to uphold a law. His refusal may constitute discrimination and subject him to a lawsuit. Perhaps the only way to avoid the charge of discrimination would be for him to stop officiating at weddings under any circumstance. But for a conservative like Lonegan, out to prove a point and challenge the law, that would seem unlikely.

In politics, where compromise is often defined as the result neither side is thrilled with, it seems this law is the best advocates can hope for.

The question remains: Just how civil will our new civil union law become?