The New Jersey courts said yes to some form of same-sex unions, and local papers said yes to blanket coverage. A look at what some of the news outlets are offering:

• The New York Times ran at least seven stories about the court ruling, starting on the front page with the standard "what happened" with "New Jersey Court Backs Full Rights for Gay Couples." Follow that up with an analysis of the court ruling. Moving into the "Metro" section, we find a tactical look at what the gay community will have to do to push the legislature toward the politically charged "marriage" instead of the more ambivalent "civil union." Finish up with some happy interviews with gay couples and an answer to the day's most pressing question: What will Jim McGreevey do?
• At the Newark Star-Ledger reporter Matthew Reilly approaches the story in a coherent Q&A format. Read reactions from the thirteen gay plaintiffs in the suit. Columnist Bob Braun blasts the New Jersey Supreme Court for refusing to use the word "marriage" in its ruling.
• The Record gets candidate reactions: Tom Kean Jr. is against the ruling, and Senator Bob Menendez is for civil unions but against gay marriage.
• The Daily News goes to Asbury Park to hear from the small but strong gay community there. A black minister from Maryland wrote an op-ed calling the ruling a "warning to the majority of African-Americans" who don't support gay marriage and urging them to vote.
• In an editorial, the New York Sun said the New Jersey Supreme Court should not have ruled on the matter at all and should have instead deferred to the legislature. And aren't we lucky that the New York Court of Appeals isn't so rash.
• The New York Post just wanted to write a "Shades of Gay" headline.