TRENTON (AP) – Same-sex marriage advocates pressed the state Supreme Court last week to allow same-sex weddings, saying that the law barring such unions is discriminatory and violates the state constitution.

A state attorney, however, said the New Jersey Constitution contains no explicit right to marriage for same-sex couples and that decisions on changing the law should be left to the Legislature.

The hourlong hearing marked the end of formal arguments in a nearly four-year legal battle as gay rights advocates fought to make New Jersey the second state in the nation, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex marriage. Two lower courts have sided with the state and have left the existing ban in place.

The Supreme Court justices reserved their decision until a later date, but after the Feb. 15 hearing the seven couples suing the state were near tears with optimism and relief.

Maureen Kilian of Butler said she had achieved everything in life she was taught to strive for – getting an education, a good job, finding love and being active in her community – except getting married.

Her voice broke as she referred to her partner, Cindy Meneghin, and their two children, ages 13 and 11.

“I want to get married before they do,” Kilian said.

The 48-year old Kilian and her partner, who have been a couple for 31 years, were high school sweethearts.

The women met as 16-year-olds at DePaul Catholic High School in Wayne, and they have stayed together ever since.

Meneghin said she hopes the court will rule that same-sex couples have the rights and dignity that come with civil marriage.

Only then will she and Kilian finally be able to have the legal protection along with the love and commitment that has endured for so many years.

“We have been living a married life,” said Meneghin.

“We’ve been described by friends and family as the ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ of gay couples. Our relationship, to the world, will not change one iota when we get that marriage license,” Meneghin said.

Other couples expressed similar sentiments as the court session closed.

“We’re going to get married. We know it’s going to happen,” said Aberdeen resident Karen Nicholson-McFadden, among the 14 plaintiffs. “I can only be optimistic after what I saw in court today.”

The seven justices peppered both sides with questions.

In one statement that drew cheerful laughs from gay rights advocates watching the hearings via television, Justice James Zazzali said the frequent prediction that same-sex weddings would hurt traditional marriages “may be untenable.”

The state did not advance that argument, but other justices questioned the state’s main defense, which was based on the constitution.

“We’ve always read our constitution so as to give broader individual rights,” said Chief Justice Deborah Poritz.

But earlier, Justice Jaynee LaVecchia noted the drastic changes that the plaintiffs are seeking.

“This is not just changing pronouns in a statute, it’s changing historical understanding of what marriage has been in the laws of New Jersey,” LaVecchia said.

Poritz said progress already is being made through the Legislature.

“Wouldn’t it be appropriate for the court to hold back and let the Legislature do what it’s supposed to do? It certainly has indicated that it is concerned about this issue,” Poritz said.

David Buckel, an attorney with gay rights organization Lambda Legal, said it is the court’s job to step in when the Legislature has crossed lines drawn by the constitution.

Conservative groups may try to redraw the lines, however, if they lose the court battle. They plan to push for a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage if the court rules in favor of the same-sex couples.

“We will move to protect New Jersey families and 6,000 years of Western tradition by drafting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage,” said state Sen. Gerald Cardinale, R-Bergen.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine opposes an amendment banning same-sex marriage, but he also believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, spokesperson Anthony Coley said.

“The governor supports strengthening domestic partnership rights and believes that all New Jerseyans deserve equal rights under the law,” Coley said. “We believe this issue should be decided through legislation, not through the courts.”

Buckel said domestic partnerships – which give same-sex couples some, but not all, of the rights of married couples – amount to unequal treatment.

“The state’s construction of two different legal structures for protecting relationships and families, one privileged and one not, creates a stigma that the New Jersey Constitution does not allow,” Buckel said.

Assistant Attorney General Patrick DeAlmeida countered that the constitution guarantees marriage, but for heterosexual couples only.

“To change that element to allow same-sex couples to marry … would be redefining marriage itself. Judicial power doesn’t extend that far,” DeAlmeida said.

He noted that lawmakers already have shown an interest in the issue by establishing domestic partnership benefits and should be the ones to decide on same-sex marriage.

There were 3,773 same-sex domestic partnerships in New Jersey as of the most recent count, near the end of 2005, according to the Department of Health and Senior Services.

Neither lawyer would predict which way the case might go, but the plaintiffs appeared overjoyed.

“I can only tell you that it was very, very exciting,” said Haddonfield resident Diane Marini, whose partner, Marilyn Maneely, died in September. “The questions they asked our attorney, they just really seemed to get the cause.”

Marini held a framed photograph of Maneely throughout the hearing and said the legal hurdles she faced after her longtime partner’s death illustrated the discrimination they faced.