While New Jersey lawmakers debate the best way to address a court order to provide benefits to same-sex couples, Maryland's Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments concerning a lower-court ruling that struck down the state's marriage law.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in October that the state must either allow same-sex couples to marry or create civil unions that offer the same rights and benefits.
Republican Sen. Gerald Cardinale introduced a constitutional amendment that would preserve marriage -- defining it as the union of one man and one woman.
"It is almost an obscenity that the Supreme Court would seize unto itself the power to order the Legislature to create legislation," he told The Star-Ledger. "That is unheard of in New Jersey.
"That kind of activism requires a reply," he added. "This is not a government of appointed justices."
Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, said his organization is prepared to introduce a separate bill, called the Equal Benefits Act, that would protect the definition of marriage, but would also provide civil benefits not based on sexual orientation.
"There are many families who cannot have access to the benefits of marriage because their living arrangements are outside the realm of marriage," he said. "For example, two elderly women who are domiciled together, or perhaps a grandparent and grandchild."
In Maryland, Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock ruled in January that the state law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman did not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
"After much study and serious reflection, this court holds that Maryland's statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage cannot withstand constitutional challenge," Murdock wrote. "Although tradition and societal values are important, they cannot be given so much weight that they alone justify a discriminatory statutory classification."
The ruling was stayed to allow the state to appeal -- arguments will begin next week.
Matt Paavola, a Baltimore attorney, filed a brief on behalf of 10 state lawmakers who seek to uphold current law.
"They just believe that the Family Law Article in question -- the one that says marriage is meant to be between one man and one woman -- was enacted by the Legislature," he told Out in Baltimore. "It is such a huge significant social policy to make any change to that, they believe it is the province of the Legislature and not the province of the court."
The law doesn't violate equal-rights protections because it burdens both genders equally, he said.
"A man can't marry a man," said Paavola, "and a woman can't marry a woman."
