Sex and the Island

The California Supreme Court, striking down two state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman, ruled Thursday that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

The court's 4-to-3 decision, drawing on a ruling six decades ago that struck down the state's ban on interracial marriage, would make California only the second state, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex marriages.

The decision, which becomes effective in 30 days unless the court grants a stay, was greeted with celebrations at San Francisco City Hall, where thousands of same-sex marriages were thrown out by the courts four years ago. It was denounced by religious and conservative groups, who pledged to support an initiative proposed for the November ballot that would amend California's constitution to ban same-sex marriages and overturn the decision.

Same-sex marriage has been a highly contentious issue in past presidential and Congressional elections, but it was not immediately clear what role the ruling would play in this year's elections. The Democratic and Republican candidates for president have all said that they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, but Republicans could use a surge in same-sex marriages in the country's most populous state to invigorate their conservative voters.

Given the historic, cultural, symbolic and constitutional significance of marriage, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority, the state cannot limit its availability to opposite-sex couples.

"In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship," he wrote, "the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."

Supporters of gay marriage said the ruling was a milestone. "This decision will give Americans the lived experience that ending exclusion from marriage helps families and harms no one," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, who noted that same-sex marriages are now legal in South Africa, Canada, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands.

But opponents said they expected the proposed ballot initiative, which has been submitted to state election officials with more than one million signatures, to pass in November.

"The court was wrong from top to bottom on this one," said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage. "The court brushed aside the entire history and meaning of marriage in our tradition."

There about 110,000 same-sex couples in California, according to census data, and the state has a strong domestic partnership law giving couples who register nearly all of the benefits and burdens of heterosexual marriage. But the majority of the justices said that is not enough.

The court left open the possibility that the Legislature could use a term other than "marriage" to denote state-sanctioned unions so long as that term was used across the board — for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

The state's ban on same-sex marriage was based on a law enacted by the legislature in 1977 and a statewide initiative approved by the voters in 2000, both defining marriage as limited to unions between a man and a woman. The question before the court was whether those laws violated provisions of the state Constitution protecting equality and fundamental rights.

Mathew D. Staver, a lawyer with Liberty Counsel, a public interest firm that defends traditional marriage, said it would ask the court to stay its decision until the election in November, meaning that Thursday's decision could be overturned before it becomes effective.

"It would only be logical" for the court to grant a stay, Mr. Staver said, given the confusion that would arise if same-sex marriages were available for only a few months.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said in a statement that he respected the court's ruling and did not support a constitutional amendment to overturn it.

In this 2008 file photo actress Portia de Rossi, left, and television personality Ellen DeGeneres arrive at the 19th Annual GLAAD Media Awards on Saturday, April 26, 2008, in the Hollywood section of Los Angeles. DeGeneres is putting the state Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage into action — she and actress Portia de Rossi plan to wed, DeGeneres announced during a taping of her talk show Thursday May 15.

I could go on - the court certainly does - but suffice to say that this ruling effectively ends the academic debate over whether marriage inequality can be justified. By taking on virtually every objection to marriage rights for same-sex couples, even the most transparently bigoted, the court has produced a document that will be cited for generations. By comparison, the 2004 Massachusetts decision legalizing gay marriage in that state was much less ambitious. The California ruling will undoubtedly fuel the efforts of those who want to amend the U.S. and California constitutions to ban gay marriage, but for now it's enough to enjoy the court's bracingly simple money quote: "An individual's sexual orientation - like a person's race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights." I just hope someone alerts the candidates for President. View this article on Time.com