New Jersey's dispute over gay marriage may never have gotten decided by judges if the state had a domestic partnerships law like the proposal that's on the ballot in Colorado, a backer of the measure said Monday during a debate.

Pat Steadman, a lobbyist who helped write Colorado's Referendum I, said New Jersey had a limited domestic partnership law that didn't allow same-sex partners to get worker's compensation coverage if their partner died and didn't touch on issues like adoption and child support, as Referendum I does.

"Domestic partnerships are a way to be fair to same-sex couples and to get away from that debate about what marriage is," Steadman told a group of about 40 people, mostly students, on the Auraria campus.

Colorado voters are also being asked to vote on Amendment 43, a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage. The issue is on the ballot in seven other states but Colorado is the only one where voters are also being asked to approve a domestic partnership proposal.

A poll by Ciruli Associates released Monday shows the marriage amendment with 55 percent support and Referendum I with 48 percent, four percentage points ahead of the opposition but within the poll's margin of error.

However, there has been some confusion among Colorado voters about whether both Amendment 43 and Referendum I can coexist.

"They absolutely can coexist. Referendum I is not gay marriage," said Sean Duffy. "So people can provide basic legal rights like hospital visitation, funeral arrangements, and they can also protect marriage and vote for 43."

"The question is whether Referendum I squares with 43. Fourty-three will stand alone and will not be challenged in and of itself," said Jon Paul with Coloradans For Marriage.

In other words, if both Amendment 43 and Referendum I pass, Referendum 43 supporters wonder if a judge's interpretation of Referendum I could be the final say.

"There's a possibility that a judge could look at (Referendum) I and say this is the same thing as marriage as has happened in California," said Paul.

Jim Pfaff, a Focus on the Family analyst who's heading a campaign to fight Referendum I and pass Amendment 43, said Colorado's proposal would essentially be marriage by a different name, making spouses and domestic partners equal under state law. With 60 legal challenges on gay marriage nationally since 1990, Pfaff said there's no way to ensure that judges wouldn't end up deciding the issue in Colorado.

In the New Jersey case, Pfaff pointed out that three judges wrote that they wished the court had gone further and authorized gay marriage. Instead the court left it to state lawmakers to come up with the way to provide equal rights to gay couples, whether it be marriage, civil unions or something else.

Pfaff said marriage has already been eroded as an institution over the last 40 years partly because of no-fault divorce laws and shouldn't be chipped away at anymore.

"If we make marriage mean anything it all of a sudden means nothing," he said.

Steadman also pointed to a recent California court ruling to bolster his point.

Earlier this month, a divided appeals court rejected a push to allow same-sex couples to marry, ruling that the state's domestic partnership law, similar to that proposed in Colorado, gave them the same rights as married couples.

However, judges could still have the last say with an appeal pending before the California Supreme Court.

Supporters of Referendum I said that won't happen here because the two are separate.

"You can protect marriage and you can vote for Referendum I because it specifically says it's not marriage," said Duffy. "It's very clear in the title."

"Amendment 43 and Referendum I are perfectly consistent," said Jim Miller, a former Douglas County judge.

Legal experts said Amendment 43 and Referendum I can coexist legally. In fact, Miller said he believes if both measures pass, less would be left up to judges' interpretation.

"If anything, I think it takes that kind of wiggle room out of the equation for the judge," he said.

The bottom line is, in the ballot box, legally, the two are not tied to one another.

Pfaff acknowledged that Colorado voters are in the unique position of being able to decide the issue for themselves and he called on Steadman and other gay rights advocates to promise not to try to use the courts to push for gay marriage.

Steadman said he couldn't promise to stop lawsuits in other states. After the debate, he said he had no plans to file any such lawsuits in Colorado.

Metro State student Tory Lipsey, 20, sees the debate as a religious one. He thinks same-sex couples should have their rights protected as domestic partners but isn't pushing for gay marriage because he sees it as a religious institution.

"It's keeping their lives secure," Lipsey said of Referendum I. "It's not marriage."