WASHINGTON, DC (AgapePress) - A U.S. senator and other conservatives are condemning an October 25 ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court that mandates same-sex unions. The court ruled Wednesday that homosexual couples are entitled to the same marriage rights and protections afforded their heterosexual counterparts.

Senator Sam Brownback

The New Jersey high court has given the State Legislature six months to decide whether to recognize same-sex "marriage" or to create civil unions for homosexuals in that state. Kansas Senator Sam Brownback says he finds it troubling that an "activist" judiciary is forcing lawmakers to take action on a major social issue, based on the notion that same-sex couples have an equal "right" to the benefits of marriage.

Courts like the one in New Jersey "continue to invent this right," Brownback asserts. "It's not in the Constitution," he points out, "and it would be a far stretch for me to think that the original writers of the [state or federal] constitutions would have contemplated any thought or point along this line."

Nevertheless, the issue of homosexual marriage "rights" has not gone away, and "it isn't going away," the Republican senator observes. "While we were hopeful for some period of time that the court wasn't going to redefine this fundamental institution," he says, "it appears that threat is far from over and that many courts are going to consider and possibly do this."

Brownback feels the New Jersey Supreme Court's action highlights the importance of protecting marriage by enshrining its traditional definition in constitutional law. This issue "warrants swift, decisive action by Congress in the form of the passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment," he contends.

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council agrees, noting that the New Jersey ruling "should serve as a wakeup call for those who believe marriage does not need federal protection." He insists that the nation "must have a U.S. constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman" if those seeking to redefine that institution are to be thwarted.

The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision has succeeded in doing one positive thing, Perkins says, namely "stoking the fires of conservatives who value marriage, family, and religious freedom." He says the ruling, at the very least, "makes this much clear: the church must be prepared to defend its right of conscience and conviction."

Matt Daniels is a pro-family advocate with Alliance for Marriage, another group that has been pushing for a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. In a recent Associated Press interview he commented that, with this ruling, the high court in New Jersey has given state lawmakers an unacceptable choice.

"The court is holding a legal gun to the head of the Legislature," Daniels asserts, "and saying under court order, 'You may choose between two bullets, which are in the chambers of this gun -- one is gay marriage, the other is gay marriage in all but name -- and you get to 'choose.'" However, he insists, "That's not a choice. That's not the democratic process."