New Jersey Court to Hear Same-Sex Marriage Case The Supreme Court's landmark rulings in favor of same-sex marriage earlier this summer have restarted the longstanding battle over allowing same-sex marriage in New Jersey, one of only two states in the Northeast where it is not yet permitted. On Thursday, advocates will appear in trial court in New Jersey to argue that those rulings require the state to immediately permit same-sex marriage - the first case nationwide to test the effect of the Supreme Court opinions on state laws. Meanwhile the administration of Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, is fighting to block that effort, saying that the full impact of the rulings is not yet clear. New Jersey is in a unique position, because its Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the state could not deny same-sex couples the benefits granted to married couples. The Legislature, in response, passed a law allowing civil unions. But more recent attempts to legalize same-sex marriage were blocked by Mr. Christie. Now, the debate in court will hinge on whether the Supreme Court ruling in June that extended federal benefits to same-sex married couples applies as well to civil unions. Advocates for same-sex marriage said the ruling clearly did not apply to civil unions and therefore, to meet the standard of equal protection that the state's court set in 2006, New Jersey must allow marriage, not just civil unions. In court papers filed in advance of the oral arguments Thursday, they argued that state-sanctioned marriage was the "unique gateway to the full array of federal marriage benefits," noting that the Supreme Court had explicitly noted its ruling was "confined to those lawful marriages" in states that allow them. "For the full range of benefits, the question is marriage or not; and for full recognition and respect and dignity, it is marriage, as well," said Hayley J. Gorenberg, a lawyer with Lambda Legal, which is arguing the case on behalf of a statewide gay rights organization as well as six same-sex couples and their children. In response, the state is arguing that the Supreme Court mandated that couples in civil unions receive the same benefits as married couples, so there is no need for New Jersey to allow marriage. But the state has also noted that federal agencies are "in flux" and had no "uniform federal policy" about whether to extend benefits to those in civil unions as well as marriage - some agencies, like the Office of Personnel Management and the State Department have said they will only recognize marriages. Those on both sides of the issue agree that the legalization of same-sex marriage is more likely to come from the courts than from the Legislature. However, national groups are also attempting to use the Supreme Court decision to build support for a legislative solution. Mr. Christie, a Roman Catholic who is considered a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination, has been a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage. He vetoed the bill legalizing same-sex marriage passed by the Legislature last year, and Democrats have been unable to win enough Republican votes to override his veto. In June, Mr. Christie said that the Supreme Court made a "bad decision" in extending federal benefits to couples in same-sex marriages, saying it was "incredibly insulting" to overturn the 1996 law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Instead, Mr. Christie has argued that voters should decide the issue of same-sex marriage in a ballot question, but Democratic legislators say that civil rights should not be decided by referendum. A Quinnipiac poll after the Supreme Court decision showed that about 60 percent of New Jersey voters supported same-sex marriage. Advocates say that the increased public support coupled with the Supreme Court ruling has made them confident. "The federal decisions made it very clear that marriage is something that is going to happen," said Troy Stevenson, the executive director of Garden State Equality, the state's largest gay rights group. I think that's where the public perception was going, and it definitely is now. The governor's office and the attorney general declined to comment. The arguments on Thursday represent the latest back-and-forth in a case that dates to 2002, in which gay couples argued they did not have the same rights as married couples. That case prompted the State Supreme Court to rule that same-sex couples must have the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. But unlike other states, where a court ruling led immediately to same-sex marriages, the New Jersey court instructed the Legislature to come up with a way to extend equal protection to gay and lesbian couples. The result was the civil unions law, and a commission to monitor whether civil unions were indeed providing equal status. The groups went back to court after the commission found that couples in civil unions still had "second-class legal status" in a range of ways, including health care decisions and inheritance rights. That prompted advocates to return to court in 2010. But the gay rights groups now argue that the Supreme Court decision extending federal benefits to marriage but not civil unions makes the discrimination plain, and so no trial is needed. In court Thursday, they are arguing for summary judgment in the case. If the court agrees, it might immediately allow same-sex couples to marry, but the state could request that the court issue a stay until it can appeal the decision. If the court does not agree to summary judgment, the case may take years to reach a resolution.