Obvious Inequality - NYTimes.com Despite polls that show broad public support for allowing same-sex couples to marry, New Jersey, to its great shame, has refused to follow the example set by other states in the Northeast - Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont - in granting marriage equality. A civil rights suit to be heard on Thursday in a New Jersey state court could finally change that. Brought on behalf of six couples and Garden State Equality, New Jersey's largest gay rights group, the case squarely addresses an urgent legal question for New Jersey that grows out of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in June that ended the unjust denial of federal marriage benefits for married same-sex couples under the federal Defense of Marriage Act. It has long been clear that civil unions under New Jersey law - a status that relegates same-sex couples to a category inferior to marriage - fails to meet the standard of equal rights for same-sex couples established by the New Jersey Supreme Court in a 2006 decision. Under the State Constitution, the court ruled, "committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples." Now that married same-sex couples are eligible for federal benefits, like joint tax filing and veteran's survivor payments, New Jersey couples in civil unions who are denied those benefits face an even bigger equality gap: they are clearly not afforded the same rights. In July, the plaintiffs in this suit filed a motion for a summary judgment asking the state court to declare what the Supreme Court ruling made obvious: New Jersey civil unions are not equal to marriage and violate the State Constitution. Chris Christie, the state's Republican governor, continues to stand in the way of equality. He has denounced the United States Supreme Court decision in June, calling it an example of "judicial supremacy." Last year, he vetoed a measure approved by the State Legislature that would have legalized same-sex marriage, claiming he wanted the issue to be put on a ballot referendum instead. He has refused to allow Republican legislators to vote their conscience on a veto override. His insistence on perpetuating the untenable civil union arrangement hurts thousands of New Jersey couples and their families. In a brief filed on behalf of the Christie administration, the state's acting attorney general, John Hoffman, veered between urging caution in redefining marriage and trying to shift the blame for discrimination to the federal government. It bizarrely suggests that federal agencies are blocking equality by declining to grant benefits to civil union partners, as if the state's refusal to allow same-sex couples to marry did not cause the denial of benefits in the first place. This case is being argued at a fraught moment for the independence and integrity of the state's court system. On Monday, Mr. Christie announced that he would not renominate an able sitting State Supreme Court Justice, Helen Hoens, for lifetime tenure on the court. It was only the second time that a governor has chosen not to renominate a competent justice in more than 65 years - the first being in 2010 when Mr. Christie declined to renominate John Wallace Jr., who was the court's only African-American member. Mr. Christie said on Monday that it was his intention to "reshape the court" because the "New Jersey Supreme Court has repeatedly strayed from its purview and overstepped its role." This lawsuit tests the independence of New Jersey courts when it comes to protecting constitutional rights - even at the risk of retaliation by the governor. Judge Mary Jacobson, who is hearing the case, should grant the plaintiffs" motion. Gay couples and their families have waited long enough for fair treatment.