Source: Seattle Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Seattle -- Activists in Washington cheered Thursday's decision by California's highest court to grant full equality in marriage to all couples in that state, but were also heartened by the slow but steady progress toward equality since this state's highest court ruled that gay and lesbian couples are not entitled to full equality.

"This is huge. California is really going to change the landscape," said Joshua Friedes, advocacy director for Equal Rights Washington, a group that lobbies for marriage equality. Traveling between Spokane and Kennewick on Thursday afternoon, he met supporters everywhere, cheering.

"People are realizing that this is obtainable in their lifetimes," Friedes said. "I would say the mood is jubilation and recommitment."

In the battle for same-sex marriage rights, gays here are making steady gains on a path similar to the one in California that led to Thursday's decisive and long-awaited victory for gays there.

Four years after Massachusetts became the first state in the U.S. to allow gays to marry, Thursday's 4-3 ruling by the California Supreme Court pumped euphoria into a movement that desperately needed a win.

Thursday's ruling carries virtually no legal punch outside California -- gay and lesbian couples going there from Washington and other states to marry would likely have no marital rights back home. Most states don't recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere.

But with a population of 38 million, the influence of the Golden State on American culture and mores is undeniable, court watchers here said.

"In a way, you can say this is some other state choosing some other path," said Julie Shapiro, associate professor of law at Seattle University.

Still, she expects Thursday's ruling to create significant momentum in the movement nationwide. "It's a hugely important opinion. And California is not just a very large state, it's also a very influential one."

For nearly a decade, Friedes worked on equality issues in Massachusetts and saw that state become the only other where gay marriage is legal. He said the news from California had re-energized those previously resigned to the possibility that they might never get further than domestic partnerships in Washington.

Connie Watts, also of Equal Rights Washington, calls the California decision "a victory for all Americans who cherish fairness and opportunity."

California's high court did what Washington's wouldn't two years ago: Justices on the Supreme Court here rejected many of the same arguments regarding equality, letting stand a state law that limits marriage in Washington to the union of a man and woman.

In the years since, Washington's gay and lesbian couples have been gradually gaining marriage-like benefits through a domestic-partnership registry established in 2007 and expanded this year by the state Legislature.

Same-sex couples who register their unions with the state are entitled to a growing list of benefits that include property rights and child support.

Similarly, California's domestic-partnership program, the first in the U.S. when it was started in 1999, was expanded over the years to include most benefits common to marriage.

Eventually, organizers here say they'll shift their goal to pursue the title of marriage as gays in California did -- only not through the courts but by way of the Legislature.

"The main thing is that the tide may be turning," said Lisa Stone, executive director of the Northwest Women's Law Center, which represented local gay and lesbian couples in this state's gay-marriage lawsuit.

The incremental increase in benefits to domestic partners has been part of a carefully orchestrated strategy in Washington. Supporters of gay marriage believe that, bit by bit, residents will see gay couples living in legally recognized relationships -- until the final step, full-fledged marriage, will be more a formality than major hurdle.

"Our purpose in passing domestic partnership legislation is about getting to full marriage in the end," said Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, one of several openly gay members of the Legislature. "We think that by building aspects of marriage in the bills, we start to change hearts and minds of citizens."

Already, 22 percent of same-sex couples in Washington are raising children, according to demographer Gary Gates, a senior research fellow at the UCLA School of Law, who believes the California decision could have tremendous impact here.

"I think it's going to put pressure particularly on the Western states," he said.

The ruling, for instance, does not require gay couples to have California residency to be wed.

"Potentially, you could have a lot of those Washington couples coming to California to get married," Gates said. "And then there's going to be a legal question of how they're treated in their home state."

But David Skover, a constitutional law professor at Seattle University who has been in a gay relationship with his partner, Sean O'Reilly, for 17 years, takes a cautious approach -- similar to that of his home state.

"What we really are seeing," he said, "is that California has taken the bold step and we are taking the incremental path."

Full article: Washington gay-marriage advocates see tide turning, but look to Legislature | Seattle Times
Gay marriage ruling rallies state activists | Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Source: KOCO-TV, Tulsa World

OKLAHOMA CITY -- State Rep. Sally Kern has been out of the news lately, but decided to refresh her anti-gay image Thursday with a press release and interviews criticizing a lobby day for workplace fairness.

She objected that "radical homosexual rights groups'' that planned a national day on Thursday to promote workplace fairness based on job performance.

Kern, R-Oklahoma City, said Oklahomans who support what she calls "traditional families" need to get more involved in policy fights "or we will cede the victory to groups seeking special rights based on changeable homosexual behavior."

The "Clock In for Equality'' day is being spearheaded by Lambda Legal, a national organization that is committed to achieving "civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work,'' said Hector Vargas, the New York group's deputy director.

"I would say that Rep. Kern is out of step with the vast majority of Americans, who believe that workers should be judged by the quality of their work and not by anything that is irrelevant to doing one's job," he told Tulsa World.

On its website, Lambda explains, "Clock In for Equality is a key part of Lambda Legal's work, engaging community leaders, employers and individuals to organize against workplace discrimination. Across the country, activists and LGBT allies will be gathering together to discuss workplace fairness and what they can do to combat discrimination."

Video link: KOCO-TV interview with Kern

Kern reacted to the event, calling it proof of a "gay agenda."

"I think it is an agenda that is not best for this nation because it undermines the traditional family and traditional marriage and that for thousands of years has been the bedrock of this nation," she said.

In a press release she called Lambda Legal "radical" and described homosexuality as "equally unhealthy" as drug or alcohol abuse.

Kern declared, "Lambda Legal makes clear that they will use harassment lawsuits and intrusive regulations to punish people who do not agree with their agenda or the lifestyle of their members."

Kern received national attention in March when she said gay people are a bigger threat to the country "than terrorism or Islam."

The Rev. Loyce Newton-Edwards of Oklahoma City said Kern is "really mischaracterizing the goals and ambitions of these groups." Newton-Edwards is president of Oklahoma PFLAG, an acronym for Parents, Friends, and Families of Lesbians and Gays.

Full article: Sally Kern Denounces Gay Rights Group | KOCO-TV
Kern attacks gay-rights groups over planned event | Tulsa World

Source: Globe and Mail
Toronto -- The third largest gay and lesbian film and video festival in the world, after those in San Francisco and Los Angeles, Inside Out, Toronto Lesbian and Gay Film and Video Festival opened last night and continues its 18th edition over the next 10 days with several new initiatives -- including the well-curated Icon Documentary Series.

The Icon series is a self-contained unit of six excellent films, focused on figures strongly connected to the visual arts. Inside Out director of programming Jason St-Laurent says the series provides a useful niche within the larger event. "Because we're serving such a diverse and large community, it's important to help people navigate through it and provide a context for viewing work," he explains. "As we're watching 600-plus submissions, we notice certain trends or currents."

The cultural icon idea, St-Laurent admits, speaks to his personal taste and background as a curator for galleries. "I like challenging film and video work, and I'm always interested in artist portraits because people rarely get that kind of insight," he says. Derek, Isaac Julien's exquisite film about artist-filmmaker Derek Jarman, interweaves a revealing, previously unseen 1991 interview and a letter written and narrated by friend Tilda Swinton with archival footage. Black White + Gray: A Portrait of Sam Wagstaff + Robert Mapplethorpe is a straightforward but solid exploration of the relationship between the influential curator and the famous photographer as told by colleagues and such friends as Patti Smith. And With Gilbert & George offers 18 years of director Julien Cole's footage of the British art stars, who have lived and worked together since the swinging sixties.

The Icon series was cemented when St-Laurent secured the Canadian premieres of Wild Combination: A Portrait of Arthur Russell, about the underrated musical genius whose work spans the experimental and disco genres, and Patti Smith: Dream of Life. The latter film, which won an award for best cinematography at Sundance 2008, is a multilayered, often poetic collaboration between photographer-director Steven Sebring and punk godmother Smith. Filmed over 11 years, after the death of Smith's husband Fred (Sonic) Smith, the doc mingles casual scenes (backstage banter, jamming with Sam Sheppard, supper with the folks) with black-and-white dream sequences and concert footage. But the Icon series isn't all international: It also includes Annette Mangaard's General Idea: Art, AIDS and the fin de siècle, a look back at the renowned artist collective based in Toronto.

Full article: Doc series profiles gay icons, from Arthur Russell to Derek Jarman | Globe and Mail

Source: ABC News (US)

For all practical purposes, the only real change that yesterday's court decision means for California's gay couples is an official piece of paper and a legal ceremony.

After all, under the state's domestic partnership laws, same-sex couples already enjoy all the legal rights and protections enjoyed by opposite-sex couples.

But for hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples in the state, today's state Supreme Court decision to strike down the ban on gay marriage was a historic and transformative moment.

"It changes everything," said Rick Jacobs, founder and chairman of the Courage Campaign, a progressive political organization. "What it says is that same-sex couples are first-class citizens like everyone else, that there is no question that everyone has equal rights."

But there are important limitations to the new legal status of gay Californians.

The decision does not change the law in other states or federal law.

And under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed in 1996, gay couples will still be denied more than 1,000 federal rights and benefits, including Social Security benefits, the ability to file a joint federal tax return and the right to petition for a spouse to immigrate.

Other federal rights include veteran's benefits, continued water rights, joint filing of bankruptcy, and tax-free transfer of property between spouses.

And the decision is threatened by a ballot initiative in November that would amend the state's constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. In California, ballot initiatives supersede legislation and court decisions.

Full article: Gay Marriage More Than a Piece of Paper | ABC News (US)

Source: Gay People's Chronicle, Toledo Blade, Toledo Free Press
Toledo, Ohio -- The University of Toledo administrator who claimed in a newspaper opinion piece that gay people can become straight and are not deserving of civil rights told a group of supporters Wednesday that her constitutional rights were violated when she was fired from the University of Toledo for writing the column.

Crystal Dixon said she had a divine mandate to write the column for the Toledo Free Press as a private citizen and that she should not have been fired from her position as associate vice president for human resources at UT because of it.

"Whether you agree with me or not is really not the issue," Dixon said at the rally and press conference held at her church. "The real issue is that I, like every citizen in the United States, have a First Amendment right to exercise free speech and to express my religion.

"I did so as a private citizen and I have been fired by a university that I have loved, served, and supported for many years."

Dixon was fired by the school on May 8.

Equality Toledo, the area’s LGBT equal rights organization, addressed her claims in its latest newsletter.

“Do not be fooled. This was not a matter of ‘free’ speech," the e‑mail reads. "Rather, the question was whether her homophobic views prevented her from fulfilling her job duties and from furthering UT’s values and diversity plan."

Michelle Stecker, interim executive director of EqualityToledo, told Toledo Blade she believes it's such a charged issue because Ms. Dixon wrote what she did while working in human resources at a public institution that promotes diversity.

"She's the one who made that choice to use this type of inflammatory language against the LGBT community," Ms. Stecker said. "If she was an administrator of the chemistry department, we wouldn't be having this conversation."

Ms. Stecker also said she's glad that the university's president had the courage to take decisive action to support diversity at UT.

Chris Link, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, said the focus should be on Ms. Dixon's job performance, and not what she said with her First Amendment right to speech.

Dixon’s April 18 piece, published on the Toledo Free Press website, objected to an April 4 column by Free Press editor-in-chief Michael S. Miller entitled "Gay Rights and Wrongs."

"As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and business owner," Dixon wrote, "I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended."

"Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle," she asserted, citing "the growing population of P-FOX . . . and Exodus International."

She went to cite the "divine order" and said that there are consequences for violating it.

Because Dixon was the assistant vice president of human resources for the university, her ability to carry out her job was called into question because of the column. Employees of the school are covered by a year-old governor’s order barring sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Most also have domestic partner benefits.

Matt Lockwood, a UT spokesman, told Toledo Blade Wednesday that the university welcomes dissent and input from others and the exchange of ideas, but her public expressions called into question her ability to do the functions of her job.

"Certain jobs within a public institution have restrictions on what those people in those jobs can express," he said.

University president Dr. Lloyd A. Jacobs wrote in a public letter to Dixon that the position Dixon espoused in the column "is in direct contradiction to University policies and procedures as well as the Core Values of the Strategic Plan which is mission critical."

At the Wednesday press conference Dixon cited her 25-year career in human resources in which she has hired and recommended the hiring of both homosexual and heterosexual people based on their qualifications.

"To say that I cannot have a personal opinion regarding the practice of some humans and not be effective in my job as a human resources leader is preposterous given my track record for the past 25 years," she said.

"At my pre-disciplinary meeting May 5, President Jacobs did not display a single policy or procedure I had violated," Dixon claimed.

Dixon said she will file First Amendment and discrimination lawsuits against UT.

At the press conference, Dixon and her local legal counsel, Tom Sobecki, said that the main thrusts of her case would be the violation of her First Amendment right to free speech, religious discrimination, and racial discrimination.

"Her speech was protected by the First Amendment," said Sobecki, a Toledo attorney specializing in employment law and civil rights. "She wrote in her private capacity, which every citizen has the right to do."

Dixon said she has retained the services of the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), which she described as "extremely aggressive when it comes to First Amendment rights."

Brian Rooney, a spokesman for TMLC, said Dixon's speech was "clearly" protected, according to Supreme Court precedent.

The issue surrounding Ms. Dixon's termination has gained national attention, including mention on The Rush Limbaugh Show, the Family Research Council's Web site, and a number of Web sites and blogs with a focus on the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues.

Full article: University of Toledo fires personnel executive for anti-gay article | Gay People's Chronicle
Dixon to file First Amendment, discrimination suits | Toledo Free Press
Dixon says University of Toledo termination violated free speech right | Toledo Blade

Source: San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News

San Francisco -- There were whoops of joys and hugs and tears among scores of gay rights advocates and same-sex couples this morning outside the California Supreme Court building in San Francisco as word spread that the justices had cleared the way for gay and lesbian marriages.

Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, a gay rights group, ran out of the building on McAllister Street and screamed, "We won!" just after the decision was released at 10 a.m. Many people unfurled California state flags with rainbow stripes sewn on across the bottom.

A spokesman for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom sent a simple e-mail to his press staff: "We won."

Holding up a sign that says, "Life feels different when you're married," Helen Pontac said she was beyond words.

"Oh, wow," she said. "It felt so good when we got married in San Francisco. This feels better."

She hugged her partner Shelly Bailes. "The best day of my life was when I met Helen," Bailes said. "This was as good as that."

Both women said they have been together for 34 years. Added Bailes, "This feels good for us. But I can't imagine what it means for all those young couples with their entire lives ahead of them."

Among those celebrating at the courthouse were Myra Beals and Ida Matson, of Mendocino, who were among the plaintiffs in the case. "It's been a great privilege to be a part of this," Beals said. "When we go home, we're going to be mobbed by our friends, our family and our neighbors. We have been promising them the biggest wedding they've ever seen."

"This is an incredibly historic day," said Judy Appel, executive director of Our Families Coalition, who is raising two children with her partner in Berkeley. "I'm so thrilled, I'm so excited for what this means for my family and all Californians."

Dave Chandler, who along with his partner, Jeff Chandler, was a plaintiff in the case, said, "I'm just cheering the joy. I'm feeling the joy all over. I feel that our kids will be well-protected when we have all the rights, responsibilities and benefits that married couples enjoy. The state of California has renewed my hope."

He said his partner was at their San Mateo home watching their two children, ages 1 and 4. The couple was married on Valentine's Day 2004 at San Francisco City Hall, one of nearly 4,000 same-sex weddings that were later annulled by the state Supreme Court.

Stuart Gaffney hugged his partner and proclaimed, "We're going to be newlyweds after 21 years together."

David Bowers and his partner were the first in line at the court clerk's office and the first to get a copy of the decision. The couple were also married at City Hall in 2004.

"That was one of the best things of my life. This is the next best thing," Bowers said. "There's tears everywhere. This can't be bad."

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said of the four justices who voted in favor of gay marriage, "I believe all four votes will be vindicated by history."

The three other justices, "in some future day, will wish they could take it back," she said.

"This is a wonderful day to be alive and to be in this movement," Kendell said.

Word of the decision spread quickly in the Castro District, for decades the city's gay epicenter. Around 11 a.m., a group of women in Harvey Milk Plaza hugged and screamed in celebration. One of the women, Irene Pick-Endrizzi, said she plans to remarry her partner of 15 years.

"I definitely believe the consciousness is evolving and it just takes time like everything else."

She expects a proposed constitutional amendment to ban the gay unions will fail with voters in November.

"My partner - wait, my wife - works in City Hall and she called me (with the news). We just celebrated our 15-year anniversary and both our birthdays are this week. It's the perfect time to have another party," Pick-Endrizzi said.

At his home in Toluca Lake, Jim Smith a parent and part of a same-sex relationship, also rejoiced. "I'm ecstatic," said Smith, 40, chief technology officer for an online advertising agency. "I think this is the beginning of the end of ostracism, bullying, and all the things that used to make people feel less human than others."

Nearby, inside the Twin Peaks bar, Mason Bowling, 61, said he recently celebrated his 30th anniversary with his partner, Patrick Fitzgerald, 58. The regulars inside the bar said they looking forward to the voter initiative in November.

Full article: Tears of joy as same-sex marriage advocates get the word | San Francisco Chronicle
California Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage | San Jose Mercury News
California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban | Los Angeles Times

Source: Washington Blade

by Kevin Naff, Washington Blade editor
The last five years have been a wild ride for gay and lesbian Americans. There was euphoria in 2003, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas and the Massachusetts high court mandated gay marriage. But those celebrations were tempered by the crushing disappointments a year later when a slew of states approved constitutional bans on marriage. Then the New York and Maryland high courts -- in sometimes harshly written opinions -- rejected arguments for marriage rights.

And now the California Supreme Court has finally weighed in and the exhilaration is back. In a 4-3 ruling, the court affirmed the right of gay couples to marry and to access the myriad state benefits of marriage.

It’s not just a legal victory bringing new rights and obligations to deserving couples. It’s an affirmation that our relationships -- our love -- is every bit as important and legitimate as any straight couple’s. This decision is an earthquake for the gay rights movement, an instant game-changer. Now, suddenly, more than 35 million Americans live in a state where the high court has said gay couples deserve the right to marry. It’s the largest state in the country and, as such, a trendsetter. There’s simply no overstating the importance of this day.

The case for marriage was never a slam-dunk in California, despite the legislature twice passing a marriage bill and the state’s liberal reputation. The case goes back to 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom directed the clerk’s office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He was pilloried in the ensuing media firestorm and blamed by some gay rights activists for igniting a backlash against gay rights. Even now, four years later, state voters may be forced to decide the issue via ballot initiative in November. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who twice vetoed marriage bills, more recently announced that he would oppose an anti-gay ballot measure.

The California ruling will help some cautious Democrats come out of the closet in their support for marriage rights. Already this year, we've seen DNC Chair Howard Dean and former Vice President Al Gore publicly endorse same-sex marriage. Can Obama be far behind?

But today is not a day for politics. It's a day to celebrate. Not just the massively important win in California, but the arrival of a new day in the gay rights movement for the entire country.

Americans are sometimes slow to do the right thing, but today we take a giant leap in the right direction. A new generation of gay kids will grow up knowing that many of their fellow gay citizens are legally married. It’s a foreign vision to those of us who grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, when AIDS cast its smothering shadow.

Thank you, California!

Full article: A California dream come true | Washington Blade

San Francisco -- California's highest court today ruled that the state's ban on marriage for same-sex couples is unconstitutional and that state authorities must take steps to grant full equality in marriage to all couples.

The court described the right to marry [p 6] as one of the "core substantive rights" for all citizens of California.

[T]he substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own -- and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family -- constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.

One of the justices writes [p 126], "Absent a compelling justification, our state government may not deny a right as fundamental as marriage to any segment of society."

In its majority opinion, the court voids a state law that limits marriage to heterosexual couples [p 120]:

[W]e determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and  that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.

The ruling calls for a "writ" that would direct "the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the
state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court."

The majority decision was written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George with concurrence by Associate Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, and Carlos R. Moreno.

With the ruling, California becomes the second state after Massachusetts where gays and lesbians can legally wed. The decision becomes final in 30 days. Unlike Massachusetts, California does not have a statute limiting marriage in the state to residents, so it's expected to become possible for couples from other states to be married in California.

Kennard writes in her own concurring opinion emphasizes that the court's ruling is one about basic rights for all California citizens:

In holding today that the right to marry guaranteed by the state Constitution may not be withheld from anyone on the ground of sexual orientation, this court discharges its gravest and most important responsibility under our constitutional form of government. There is a reason why the words “Equal Justice Under Law” are inscribed above the entrance to the courthouse of the United States Supreme Court. Both the federal and the state Constitutions guarantee to all the “equal protection of the laws”, and it is the particular responsibility of the judiciary to enforce those guarantees.

The eagerly anticipated Supreme Court ruling was released at 10am (PDT) today on the court's website. (Interest in the decision was so high that the site was occasionally unavailable.)

The court considered this issue: "Does California’s statutory ban on marriage between two persons of the same sex violate the California Constitution by denying equal protection of the laws on the basis of sexual orientation or sex, by infringing on the fundamental right to marry, or by denying the right to privacy and freedom of expression?"

Kennard emphasized in her concurring opinion that equal rights is something that must often be enforced by courts even when the issue is unpopular:

The architects of our federal and state Constitutions understood that widespread and deeply rooted prejudices may lead majoritarian institutions to deny fundamental freedoms to unpopular minority groups, and that the most effective remedy for this form of oppression is an independent judiciary charged with the solemn responsibility to interpret and enforce the constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and equal protection.

Supporters of marriage equality have scheduled a "celebration of love and family" at the San Francisco LGBT Center, 1800 Market St., at 5 pm today, with similar observances planned in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Luis Obispo and Palm Springs, San Francisco Chronicle reports.

"Express your joy - or frustration - with dignity and resoluteness," the advocacy group Equality California advised participants in an e-mail message.

The court heard oral arguments for the case in an extraordinary three hour session on March 4.

Today's ruling responds to a series of cases that challenge California's ban on same-sex marriage and a 2000 voter-approved ballot initiative that defines marriage as a union between a man and woman.

The challenges stem from a February 2004 decision by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to let same-sex get marriage licenses from City Hall.

After the city of San Francisco had granted about 4,000 licenses in four weeks the practice was halted by the Supreme Court responding to a lawsuit by the state's attorney general. The court later ruled the city had no authority to issue the licenses and that they were invalid.

But the high court said it was willing to allow separate proceedings to test the constitutionality of the state marriage laws.

Eventually, six lawsuits were filed -- four by the city of San Francisco and the three sets of same-sex couples and two by the groups opposing same-sex marriage. The state attorney general's office and governor became parties to defend the state laws.

The city of San Francisco and three sets of a total of 19 same-sex couples argued in March that a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

On the other side, the state marriage laws was defended by lawyers representing California Attorney General Jerry Brown, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Campaign for California Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Over time, the California legislature has granted to gay and lesbian couples virtually all the rights of marriage through the state's domestic partnership program. Domestic partners may make medical decisions for each other, receive employee benefits through a partner, hold parental rights with a partner's child. Most recently, in 2006, the legislature gave registered domestic partners the right to file joint state tax returns.

But the term "marriage" has been reserved, up to now, only for heterosexual couples.

Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed bills passed by the legislature that would have authorized "marriage" for same-sex couples. In rejecting the measures, he said he thinks the question should be up to voters or the courts, not lawmakers.

The Supreme Court decision concludes that  those "separate, but equal" rights are not enough to meet the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection. In a press release accompanying the decision, the court explained:

Although the opinion acknowledges that the recent comprehensive domestic partnership legislation enacted in California affords same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the opinion concludes that by assigning a different name for the family relationship of same-sex couples while preserving the historic and honored designation of "marriage" only for opposite-sex couples, the California statutes threaten to deny the family relationship of same-sex couples dignity and respect equal to that accorded the family relationship of opposite-sex couples and thereby impinge upon a same-sex couple's right to marry as protected by the California Constitution ...

Right-wing organizations have submitted what they claim to be than 1.1 million signatures for an initiative that would amend the state Constitution to enshrine discrimination in the state's constitution. If at least 694,354 signatures are found to be valid, the measure would go on the November ballot and, if approved by voters, would override any court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.

Schwarzenegger vowed last month to campaign against the measure if it makes it onto the ballot. He repeated his opposition today to the proposed anti-gay amendment.

[This story was modified several times through the day to add more information. It's a complex 172 page decision with several concurring and dissenting opinions.]