Last week's decision by the state Supreme Court not only legalized same-sex marriage, it was also the first time a U.S. court ruled that sexual orientation must be afforded the same legal standing as that given to a person's sex, gender, or religion.

Written by Chief Justice Ronald George, the 4-3 ruling states "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."

The court also determined that any laws that do discriminate against a person based on their sexual orientation must be held to the highest standards of judicial review – known as "strict scrutiny" – when being reviewed by the courts, as opposed to the less stringent "rational basis" standard of review.

As the court noted in its opinion, the "more exacting and rigorous standard of review – 'strict scrutiny' – is applied when the distinction drawn by a statute rests upon so-called 'suspect classification' or impinges upon a fundamental right."

In other words, the court found that gays and lesbians are a class of people after whom the courts have to be particularly protective of, according to legal experts.

"The decision by the California Supreme Court today striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage is one of the most significant gay rights opinions ever issued by a court," said Columbia Law School Professor Nathaniel Persily, a constitutional law expert who co-edited the book Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy, which examines public opinion on issues such as same-sex marriage. "When a court analogizes gay rights to the struggle for African American civil rights it sends a strong message that such [anti-gay] discrimination will almost always be unconstitutional."

City Attorney Dennis Herrera agreed, saying in a phone call with reporters shortly after the ruling was released that the decision is truly historic.

"California has taken a bold leap not just for marriage equality in California but for marriage equality and equal protection across this country," said Herrera.

With California's highest court often a trendsetter that other state courts follow, last week's decision is likely to have a profound impact not just for LGBT people in the Golden State but across the country. The ruling could have a positive influence on Connecticut's highest court, which has yet to issue its decision in a same-sex marriage case pending before it.

"The California court is the most influential in the country. It will inspire other rulings that will knock down barriers to the fundamental right to marry," said Maya Harris, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which was a co-counsel in the case for the 14 plaintiff couples and Equality California, the statewide LGBT lobbying group. "Today is the day we've been working for. It is a watershed for basic fairness and human dignity."

The breadth of the court's May 15 ruling stunned many in the legal profession. Attorney Stephen LeBlanc, an openly gay man who lives in Oakland, said he broke down in tears when he saw the court's strict scrutiny determination.

"For the f

City Attorney Dennis Herrera addresses a crowd that filled City Hall for a news conference shortly after the state Supreme Court's ruling. Photo: Jane Philomen Cleland

irst time anywhere in the U.S. this court found that any law that treats homosexuals different from heterosexuals must be subject to strict scrutiny under the constitution. Basically, anything reviewed under strict scrutiny always fails," said LeBlanc. "It basically is a ruling that says any legislation that has a substantially different impact on homosexuals than heterosexuals would almost certainly be struck down as unconstitutional."

"It is the most important protection of rights that any group of people could possibly have," added LeBlanc. "There is nowhere else to go; it is such a home run."

The majority of justices determined that strict scrutiny applied in the same-sex marriage case for two reasons. First, the court reasoned that the state's anti-gay marriage laws "properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents – like gender, race, and religion – a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment."

Secondly, the court said that denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry "impinges upon a same-sex couple's fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple."

Under this reasoning, the court determined that the state has no "compelling" interest in restricting marriage to only opposite-sex couples, nor is it "necessary" to maintain such a restriction. The majority opinion rejected outright the arguments used by anti-gay and conservative groups opposed to same-sex marriage.

"Permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples," states the opinion.

San Francisco Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart, who argued the city's case before the Supreme Court, said the ruling is more than just a victory for same-sex marriage.

"It really recognized the equality of lesbian and gay individuals," said Stewart, herself an out lesbian. "The court ruled that if the state treats LGBT relationships differently from others it demeans those relationships. The court said it is time for that historic prejudice to end and that the state should no longer participate in it in any way."

The scope of the ruling has also raised questions on whether the court would strike down a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage – expected to be on the November ballot – should voters adopt the initiative, which only needs a simple majority to pass.

According to the opinion, the court found that under Californian's constitution, "the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process."

The court went on to state that "substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish – with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life – an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage."

Legal scholars said the court's decision certainly provides for a legal challenge to be mounted against the amendment, but remain uncertain of just how the court would rule in such a matter.

"What the court would do then is not known," said EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors, who is hopeful the issue will not need to go before the court and that voters will reject the constitutional amendment in the fall.

"We are working hard and have a campaign up and running to defeat that measure," said Kors. "The decision will help us with that effort."

The thousands of marriages expected to take place between June 16 and the November election could profoundly impact how Californians view the issue of same-sex marriage and how they vote in the ballot booth this fall.

Eight years ago during the fight against Proposition 22 – the statewide initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman and was inserted into the family code section that applied to marriages performed out of state – most Californians had never witnessed a gay marriage, either first hand or on the nightly news. Since then thousands of same-sex couples have exchanged vows in San Francisco; Portland, Oregon; New Paltz, New York; and throughout Massachusetts.

Mike Marshall, the campaign manager for the No on Knight campaign, so called because the late state Senator Pete Knight was a major backer and author of Prop 22, said he is convinced that having voters witness long-term, committed gay and lesbian couples get married over the next four months assures the defeat of the constitutional amendment in November.

"We are going to kick their ass. I predict we will win with a 5 to 10 percent margin," Marshall told the Bay Area Reporter following the celebration in City Hall last Thursday. "Californians will not annul people's marriages."

Marshall said the best strategy the LGBT community could employ to defeat the anti-gay measure this year is for every single gay and lesbian couple to plan to get married this summer.

"Everybody should have the largest marriage ceremony they possibly can afford and invite everyone they know," said Marshall.

What happens to those marriages should the constitutional amendment pass also has legal experts scratching their heads. The amendment is not worded to be retroactive, and the court is not expected to grant a stay of its ruling, as the anti-gay groups backing the amendment have asked it to do.

"It will be interesting if they do pass that constitutional amendment what happens to the marriages in the interim? It is not an easy question to answer what happens to the marriages of the people who got married during that time," said Persily.