Words matter.

That was evident in New Jersey last week, where the United Parcel Service rejected an employee's request to add a lesbian employee's partner to her health insurance plan.

UPS employee Gabriael Brazier and partner Heather Aurand entered into a civil union just days after New Jersey's new civil unions law took effect in February. Aurand and Brazier assumed that doing so would mean that Aurand could get health coverage under Brazier's UPS health plan. After all, UPS extends such coverage to the married spouses of its straight employees in New Jersey and elsewhere, and New Jersey's civil unions law specifies clearly, "Civil union couples shall have all the same benefits...as are granted to spouses in a marriage."

Not so fast, UPS said last week. In a letter denying coverage for Aurand, UPS said New Jersey's civil unions law isn't the equivalent of marriage. New Jersey, UPS said, "did not go as far as Massachusetts and afford same-sex couples the ability to marry. Had the New Jersey Legislature done that, you could have added Ms. Aurand as a spouse under the plan. ...New Jersey law does not treat civil unions the same as marriage."

An assemblyman who sponsored the civil unions bill said, "I'm shocked. We made it clear through the language and intent that when it came to issues like this, we fully expected civil-unioned couples would be covered."

That may perhaps be true, but as the adage goes, actions often speak louder than words. In this case, as Lambda Legal attorney David Buckel pointed out, "The (New Jersey) Legislature said, 'You folks aren't worthy of marriage.' That has an impact. If the New Jersey Legislature would just take back the invitation to discriminate, UPS would do the right thing."

Indeed, in Massachusetts, UPS has done the right thing. Massachusetts law treats gay and lesbian couples exactly the same as it treats straight couples. It gives all couples—straight or gay—the same marriage license. There is no equivocation. Consequently, UPS treats all its married employees in Massachusetts—straight or gay—the same way, with equal benefits provided to all.

Sure—Aurand and Brazier could take UPS to court. They might even win in a New Jersey court. But health benefits are governed under federal law, so the case would no doubt end up in federal court. Who wants to bet that ultimately a federal judge wouldn't side with UPS?

So far, in just five brief months, Garden State Equality, New Jersey's leading gay rights group, says it's received 176 complaints from couples who say their civil unions haven't been given equal treatment by employers and government officials, despite the language of the law.

Why should that be surprising? After all, marriage is the standard. If civil unions were the exact same thing as marriage, then the state would just give everybody a civil union certificate and stop issuing marriage licenses.

It's all food for thought here in Illinois, where we have civil unions legislation pending. We're not arguing that passing such a bill wouldn't represent progress. It would. It means our relationships would be recognized by the State of Illinois, and it would provide many gay and lesbian couples in the Land of Lincoln with some badly needed benefits. That's more than we have now, and that's why we ardently support the legislation.

But it's worth noting what's happening in New Jersey, as well as in other states with civil unions, such as Connecticut. Already, Lambda Legal and Garden State Equality are going back to lawmakers to say, "Thanks, but we still want full equality under the law." And that means marriage. Plain and simple.