My mom is a UU minister. So I’m kind of speaking from experience, here.
UU ministers consider ceremonies of union to be marriage ceremonies. They have not used the term ‘marriage’ because it implies the license, which is not included. But they are considered morally, religiously, and in all other ways except those specifically regulated by the state, married. They often advise that couples joined in that manner seek out other means of establishing the rights they would have otherwise obtained - durable and medical power of attorney, etc.
They use the same phrasing and statements required of the license for hetero couples. In our state, 1) That both individuals identify themselves by name, 2) that they both state that they freely enter into union, and 3) that they accept the terms of the union. I’m doing that from memory, so the wording might be a bit off, but that’s the basics. In my mom’s opinion, they are married by the church, regardless of the legal licensing involved. She considers the civil union part a separate issue, and one that she’s not terribly happy about, mind. But it was/is the law, even before now, at least in practice (if not defined as explicitly as it is heading). And she abided by it. The only thing that is different is that if there is a license, then the state comes in on the pronoucing part - you present if it isn’t a licensed marriage, you pronounce if it is. (She’s had to ‘present’ hetero couples who had forgotten to get their licenses or didn’t have them with them, then re-marry them using the basics after they get their licenses, with the pronouncement at that point.)
I can’t comment on whether the ministers in NY were truly breaking the law - it seems that my mother knows the difference between declaring a couple married in the eyes of the church, and in the eyes of the state. I would tend to lean more toward activism/civil disobedience on the part of the ministers - they’re kind of noted for standing on principle. And they wouldn’t be the first to do it - some UU ministers in PA have refused to perform ANY marriages until ALL marriages are considered legal. It has less impact, though, because who’s gonna sue them? Visible, but not exactly likely to get the laws challenged.
However, it starts to get sticky where marriages are considered formalized even without a license if a ceremony was performed, if marriage is defined to exclude gay couples.
The difference between ‘union’ and ‘marriage’ is semantic. Marriage, looking it up etymologically, refers to providing someone with a young partner. The linguistic difference between the male version and the female version is miniscule (mara vs mari), and does not refer to opposite sex, only to the provision of a young woman or man (does not specify the gender of the person to whom the partner is being provided). (Matrimony, however, has to do with becoming a mother, so shouldn’t be used for modern marriage anyway, unless you know they’re having kids…) So while some people will insist that there is a DIFFERENCE between the two, from the religious perspective, I beg to differ. A lot of UU ministers also beg to differ. One way or another, if laws get passed to specifically define marriage in terms of hetero couples, someone will eventually challenge it on religious freedom grounds. UU ministers just haven’t felt a need to push it before now. But with the press-back on defining it as different, legally, when it is something that even Pres. Bush has said is not separable from culture, religion, and society… well, there’s gonna be some folk who will say ‘if you say it is religious, don’t use laws to define it!’
Anyway, JMHO - while I’d like to agree that they are being prosecuted in error, I think it is more likely that they hoped to set a precedent, instead, based on their religious beleif that marriage is a term that applies to gay couples as well as straight. But that’s definitely in MHO land. I don’t read minds.