Attorneys involved in the gay marriage case said Tuesday that couples can begin picking up marriage license applications sometime on or after Nov. 10. A judge at the New Haven Superior Court, where the case began in 2004, still must decide the precise date.

The state Supreme Court's decision allowing same-sex marriages became official Tuesday with its publication in the Connecticut Law Journal. The publication triggered a 10-day period when motions for reconsideration can be filed.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said after that period ends on Nov. 10, the Superior Court judge can act on the high court's ruling.

The judgment may come later that week because Nov. 10 is a Monday, a busy day for the Superior Court, and Tuesday is a state holiday.

The state Department of Public Health is having new marriage applications printed that reflect the change. Instead of putting one name under "bride" and the other under "groom," couples will see two boxes marked "bride/groom/spouse." The new forms are expected to be shipped out to city and town clerks later this week.

State District Judge Robert Dry in Collin County has set a Sept. 12 hearing on the request from attorneys for convicted killer Charles Dean Hood for arguments on whether a former judge and district attorney were in an unethical romantic relationship during Hood's trial. Hood is set to die Sept. 10 for murdering a couple in Plano in 1989.

Perry has the authority to block executions with a one-time, 30-day reprieve for condemned prisoners.

Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle confirmed the governor's office had received the letter. Perry, who was in east Texas on Wednesday visiting Hurricane Gustav evacuees preparing to return home, had made no decision on the request, Castle said.

Hood's lawyers contend the alleged secret relationship between now-retired Judge Verla Sue Holland, who presided over Hood's capital murder trial in 1990, and the prosecutor, former Collin County District Attorney Tom O'Connell, tainted the trial.

The ballot question essentially will ask voters to prohibit the practice of same-sex marriage, which was approved this year by the California Supreme Court.

The discrepancy between voters' general attitudes against gay marriage and their position on banning it could be explained by a hesitancy to remove a constitutional right, said Mark Baldassare, president and chief executive of the Public Policy Institute of California, which conducted the poll.

A majority of likely voters, 54 percent, oppose ending gay marriage, compared with 40 percent who support it, the poll said. The result is similar to the findings of a Field Poll in July, which found that 51 percent of likely California voters opposed ending gay marriage, while 42 percent said they supported it.

But when it comes to general attitudes about gay marriage, voters in the Public Policy Institute poll are evenly split, at 47 percent for and against — as they have been for the past three years.

The results mark the first time in over three decades of polling that more California voters have approved of extending marriage to gay couples than have disapproved, said Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo. The survey of 1,052 registered voters was conducted over the phone.

"I would say this is a historic turning point or milestone," DiCamillo said. "We have speculated in the past there would be some time in the future when a majority would support same-sex marriage. Well, the lines have crossed."

The poll found that 51 percent of respondents backed legalizing same-sex marriage and 42 percent opposed it, DiCamillo said.

In 2006, when participants were asked, "Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex?" 44 percent said they approved and 50 percent objected. In 1977, the first year Field posted the question to voters, 28 percent approved and 59 percent were opposed.

The poll was conducted from May 17 to May 26 in the days after the California Supreme Court handed down its historic ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in the nation's most populous state. A smaller percentage of respondants_ 48 percent — said they agreed with the court's decision and 46 percent disagreed.

The annual "March for Life" rally was due to begin at noon (1700 GMT) on the sprawling National Mall and take protesters past the Capitol, the seat of the US legislature, to the Supreme Court, where on January 22, 1973, the country's highest justices voted seven to two that a state law in Texas that banned abortion, except to save a woman's life, was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court decision, enshrined as "Roe v. Wade" for the key figures in the case, gave the United States some of the least restrictive abortion laws in the world and galvanized religious opposition groups into action against it.

On the eve of the march, anti-abortion activists crowded into the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception at Catholic University in Washington to pray for abortion to be banned, officials at the university said.

While local media reported that thousands had attended the all-night vigil, university officials were still counting heads on Tuesday morning, spokeswoman Jackie Hayes said.

More than 1,000 "pro-life" advocates from around the United States spent the night sleeping on floors at the university ahead of the march, the school's website said.

The Reverend David O'Connell, president of Catholic University, attended a breakfast "with President George W. Bush and pro-life leaders" at the White House Tuesday morning, the website added.

Norma McCorvey -- originally given the pseudonym "Jane Roe" for the landmark case -- was due to hold an anti-abortion news conference alongside Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul in Washington ahead of the march.

McCorvey was first brought before a court in Dallas, Texas, in 1970 by two women lawyers seeking the right for the then-homeless, 22-year-old single mother to terminate her third pregnancy.

The defendant was Henry Wade, the district attorney representing the state of Texas.

The Texas court's ruling favored "Roe," but it still did not strike down Texas's state laws banning abortion.

So that by the time the case came to the Supreme Court and its decision in favor of universal abortion rights nationwide was handed down, McCorvey had already had her third child, which she put up for adoption.

Years later, she converted to Catholicism and became an anti-abortion activist.

"I believe that I was used and abused by the court system in America. Instead of helping women in Roe v. Wade, I brought destruction to me and millions of women throughout the nation," McCorvey told lawmakers in 2005.

Roe versus Wade is seen as increasingly vulnerable to being overturned, as the court has turned more conservative with recent appointments and it requires only five of the nine Supreme Court judges to vote in favor of changing the decision to permit the 50 states to set their own abortion bans.

In April, the high court took the first step in rolling back abortion rights in more than a generation by banning a controversial late-term termination procedure.

Public opinion has remained fairly constant over the years with some 25 percent of Americans believing abortion should be available on demand, 25 percent saying that it should be totally banned, an 50 percent holding that it should be legal but restricted.

The case, Corrie et al. v. Caterpillar, was filed in Seattle in 2005, but a district court dismissed it. After this hearing, the appeals court will rule whether the suit should be dismissed or sent back to the lower court.

Cindy and Craig Corrie, the woman's parents, allege Caterpillar violated human rights and committed war crimes by knowingly selling its equipment to the Israeli army, which used the bulldozers to raze Palestinian homes and endanger people. Rachel Corrie was run over by a bulldozer driven by an Israeli soldier as she tried to block a home from demolition.

"We are essentially arguing that you cannot knowingly provide substantial assistance — the means to commit war crimes, which is essentially what Caterpillar has done here," said Maria LaHood, with the Center for Constitutional Rights, on the Corries' legal team.

Israel said the death was an accident, according to The Associated Press. Caterpillar has said in the past that it can't be held responsible for how its bulldozers are used.

On Friday, a Caterpillar spokeswoman declined to comment on the development.

The Corries seek monetary damages in the civil suit, and they want to stop Caterpillar from selling its products to groups they say violate human rights. Four Palestinian families whose homes were bulldozed are also plaintiffs.

"We hope that this decision would mean eventually that Caterpillar shouldn't sell D9 bulldozers to Israel while they are using them to commit human-rights violations," LaHood said.

The death of The Evergreen State College student polarized political camps about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is not the first time corporations have been tried or held liable for their involvement in alleged human-rights violations or war crimes, LaHood said.

Three judges will hear arguments, and a ruling could take a few months, LaHood said.

Predominantly-Islamic Somalia has endured a lengthy civil war and several rounds of failed peace talks since the collapse of its last civil government in 1991.