The state argues that Connecticut's 2005 civil unions law gives the couples the equality they seek under state law.

The state Supreme Court began hearing the case Monday and was expected to issue a decision later in the year.

Attorneys on both sides say a ruling in the couples' favor could have nationwide implications for states that have adopted or are considering civil union-like legislation.

Currently, only Massachusetts allows same-sex couples to marry. Connecticut, Vermont, California, New Jersey, Maine and Washington have laws allowing either civil unions or domestic partnerships. Hawaii extends certain spousal rights to same-sex couples and cohabiting heterosexual pairs.

Anne Stanback, president of the group Love Makes a Family, and a handful of gay marriage supporters, were among the first to arrive at the Supreme Court on Monday morning. She and her partner of 23 years have not had a civil union because they are waiting for full marriage rights.

"We wanted to make sure we were part of the history," Stanback said.

The hearing also drew gay marriage opponents, including members of the Family Institute of Connecticut.

"We hope the court will realize that something this radical should be left to the people, that something this disruptive, divisive and controversial should be left to the people to decide and not handed down from above," said Peter Wolfgang, the group's director of public policy.

The Connecticut couples, who have been together between 10 and 32 years, say civil unions are inferior to marriage and violate their rights to equal protection and due process.

Married couples have federal rights related to taxes, Social Security beneficiary rules, veterans' benefits and other laws that people in civil unions don't have.

Because civil unions aren't recognized nationwide, other rights, such as the ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, disappear when couples cross state lines.

The Connecticut couples' claim was dismissed by a lower court last year when a judge said they received the equality they sought when Connecticut passed a same-sex civil unions law. The couples appealed.

The state Department of Public Health and the Madison town clerk's office were named as defendants in the case after denying marriage licenses to the couples based on state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's advice.

"Our basic argument is, the trial court correctly recognized that there is a rational basis for the state to use a different name for the same rights and benefits accorded same-sex couples," Blumenthal said. "The rights and benefits are identical, whether the union is called a civil union or a marriage."

A bill is pending in Connecticut's legislature to approve same-sex marriage, but leaders of the Judiciary Committee say they want to pull it from consideration this session because they do not believe enough lawmakers would vote to approve it.

Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who signed the civil unions bill into law in 2005, has said she would veto a gay marriage bill. Rell has said she believes marriage is between one man and one woman.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision in the case. The majority wrote:

In cases where an applicant for federal habeas relief is not barred from obtaining an evidentiary hearing by 28 U. S. C. §2254(e)(2), the decision to grant such a hearing rests in the discretion of the district court. Here, the District Court determined that respondent could not make out a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and therefore was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. It did so after reviewing the state-court record and expanding the record to include additional evidence offered by the respondent. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the hearing. We hold that it did not.

Read the Court's opinion per Justice Thomas, along with a dissent from Justice Stevens.

Fowler was arrested after detectives used Department of Motor Vehicle records to trace broken headlight lenses found at the accident scene to his vehicle, said Nassau County police officer Thomas Blanchard.

Police said Nina Sharma, 49, was struck by the vehicle as she stood at the foot of the family driveway, waiting for her husband, Raj, to bring trash cans to the curb, before they took a late-night walk.

Homicide detectives said the impact threw or dragged her about 65 feet. She was pronounced dead at Nassau University Medical Center.

The couple, who have three children, own a clothing business in Hicksville.

Due to the victim's age, a Defiance man convicted Monday of child sexual abuse was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Defiance County Common Pleas Judge Joseph Schmenk handed the mandatory sentence to Andrew Arps, 18, 700 Kiser Road, for rape, a first-degree felony. Arps, who pleaded guilty to the charge Monday morning, will be parole eligible in 10 years. State law required Schmenk to impose the sentence because the victim " a four-year-old girl " was less than 10 years of age.

Authorities said during Monday's hearing that Arps engaged in digital penetration at an apartment at 700 Kiser Road on Nov. 21. Because the sentence was mandatory, the court entertained only a few comments before Arps was sentenced. Arps said he was "sorry for everything. If I could take it back I would."
The victim's father, however, said Arps had "stolen my daughter's innocence. I hope for his sake he doesn't get parole. No amount of time he can spend in jail ... can make the hurt go away."

Arps' court-appointed attorney, Steve Sondergaard of Defiance, said his client understands his conduct and is remorseful. "I believe Mr. Arps understands how this not only impacts the victim, but himself and his family," said Sondergaard. "He's truly remorseful. He understands his wrongdoing."

Schmenk made no comment in pronouncing sentence while assistance county prosecuting attorney Morris Murray said the crime has made a "tremendous impact on the victim" and her parents.

Arps was arrested in November by Defiance police not long after the crime occurred. He was later indicted by a county grand jury in December for a single count of rape. The defendant has been incarcerated at CCNO on a $1 million bond.

Federal prosecutors plan to retry Brown and the others on the counts that were overturned.

The Supreme Court Monday turned down an appeal from an Iowa telecommunications company that claimed Qwest Communications International Inc. owed it money for wireless phone calls that Qwest connected to its network.

At issue in the case, which was brought by Iowa Network Services Inc., is whether federal regulators have the final say on telecom rates or whether local call rates can be set by state officials.

Lower federal courts ruled in Qwest's favor and gave Iowa's state utilities board a role in resolving the dispute. By declining to take the case, without comment, the Court let stand the lower court rulings in Qwest's favor, which will save Qwest tens of millions of dollars in charges and interest that INS had sought.

James Troup, Iowa Networks' attorney, said the rulings undermined the ability of the Federal Communications Commission to enforce uniform rates across the country and could also affect other federally regulated industries, such as electric and gas utilities and railroads.

The quarrel began in the late 1990s, when INS sought to bill Qwest for wireless telephone calls that Qwest transmitted to INS's networks, which INS then sent to local phone companies. The calls were originated by third-party wireless carriers, not Qwest.

INS argued that Qwest did not provide them with enough information to determine which wireless companies originated the call, making it impossible to bill firms for the use of their network. At that point, INS sought payment from Qwest, based on rates that had been approved by the FCC.

Qwest, though, had sought a ruling in 2000 from the Iowa Utilities Board, which said that since the calls in question are local, rather than long-distance, they would not be subject to the FCC-approved rates.

Iowa Network Services said in its petition to the Supreme Court that the board's ruling overrides federally approved rates that require telecom carriers to charge the same rates to all customers, INS said.

A federal district court and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, agreed with much of the utility board's analysis. The 8th Circuit said that rather than nullifying the rates, the utilities board's ruling meant they didn't apply to local traffic.

The case is Iowa Network Services Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 06-1217.

Iowa Network Services owns a stake in Newton, Iowa-based Iowa Telecommunications Services Inc., whose shares dropped a penny to $21.88 in early trading. Qwest shares rose 9 cents to $9.86.

Over 250,000 people gathered in Rome Saturday to protest a bill currently before parliament which would give legal status to unmarried heterosexual and same-sex couples. The bill was approved by Italy's cabinet in February, but has been harshly criticized by the Italian justice minister and the top Italian bishop. The proposal would give unmarried couples combined medical insurance, the right to visit their partner in prisons or hospitals, inheritance rights, and decision-making authority should one partner become sick. Couples would have to live together for nine years before they would be entitled to property rights, but if the legislation is passed, couples would be able to take advantage of the other legal protections immediately.

The Vatican has said that giving unmarried couples rights would threaten traditional families. Saturday's Family Day rally, not organized by the Vatican, drew tens of thousands of families. Organizers said over 1.5 million people participated, but an early police estimate was lower at about 250,000. Supporters of the proposed legislation held a counter-demonstration, which was attended by some 10,000 people. A similar rally in support of the bill was held in March.