That joyful noise you hear rumbling across America is the sound of equality applauding: today the California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that lesbian and gay couples have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.

The decision could be overturned, however, if a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage makes it onto the November ballot, as expected, and is passed by voters.

The right-wing reaction to the court's ruling from Karen England, executive director for the antigay Capitol Resource Institute, is typical. She said in a statement issued via email:

But California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is on the winning side. Within minutes of the court ruling, he issued this statement:

Even the normally more conservative "Blue Dog" Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein recognized the ruling in a statement to this reporter:

Everyone assumed he meant "officiate at the weddings of as many LGBT people..."

The reaction to the ruling from LGBT advocates has been pure elation.

"We have waited more than 50 years for the opportunity to marry," said Phyllis Lyon, on behalf of herself and Del Martin, who are plaintiffs in the case. Lyon, 83, and Martin, 87, have been together 56 years. "We are thrilled that this day has finally come.

"As you can imagine, this is a moment of pure happiness and joy," said Shannon Minter, Legal Director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights - who argued the case before the court. 



"It is an absolutely wonderful and historic day," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office was also a plaintiff in the case, told reporters on a teleconference call.

"We're tremendously gratified that the Court today has fulfilled its traditional duty," said Jennifer Pizer, Senior Counsel for Lambda Legal. "Like the 1948 decision recognizing the right of interracial couples to marry, this ruling keeps a promise that every Californian should hold dear -- the California Constitution embraces everyone equally. Each of us depends on the Supreme Court to enforce our basic rights to be free and equal under law -- no more and no less than our neighbors and friends. Enforcement was essential for mixed-race families in the 1940s and for women in the 1970s, and it's essential for gay men and lesbians now. California's Constitution safeguards all of us."

From a legal and civil rights perspective, the ruling was elegant. Here's a sample (courtesy Lambda Legal):

This case started on Valentine's Day, 2004. As they had been doing for years as part of a national Freedom to Marry Coalition, same sex couples went before local city clerks asking for marriage licenses. In Beverly Hills, Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, the Rev Troy Perry and Phillip De Bliek were refused and four days later their attorney, Gloria Allred filed a lawsuit challenging the state law.

But in San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom gave the city clerk the go-ahead. Apparently Newsom was in attendance during President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech in which Bush advocated a federal constitutional amendment banning marriage equality for same sex couples.

After consulting attorneys and local LGBT leaders, Newsom decided to defy state law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman and grant the issuance of gender-neutral marriage licenses. The first couple to be legally married that day were Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon.

When word got out, thousands of lesbian and gay couples flocked to San Francisco with flowers in their hair and wedding bouquets in their hands, including celebrity Rosie O'Donnell and her partner.

One month later, a judge enjoined the city from issuing any more licensees. By then, nearly 4,000 same sex couples had been legally married.

Six lawsuits -- one by the city of San Francisco defending Newsom's action and three others filed by lesbian and gay couples and LGBT organizations, and two antigay groups opposing marriage equality -- were consolidated into one lawsuit.

In 2005, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled that banning same-sex marriage violated "the basic human right to marry a person of one's choice" and that state marriage laws discriminated on the basis of gender. But in 2006 an appeals court said the state could keep the history and tradition of the definition of marriage while also protecting state domestic partnerships laws.

When the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last March, known as In re Marriage Cases, S147999, 90 briefs poured in -- 44 of which were amicus briefs, with 30 of those being filed in support of marriage equality -- all of which were posted on the court's website.

But the Supreme Court's decision is not the final one. Last month, Protect Marriage, a religious right coalition funded by such groups as Focus on the Family, spent around $2 million to gather more than 1.1 million signatures - significantly more than the 694, 354 valid signatures required to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would ban same sex marriages.

Other proposed constitutional amendments that would broaden the ban to include any legal recognition of same sex couples, failed to get enough support. A coalition of LGBT groups called Equality for All -- led by the statewide lobbying group Equality California -- unsuccessfully mounted a "Decline to Sign" campaign. However, the coalition's effort to stop the ballot initative continues.

There is great concern that -- despite very public statements about leaving the state's current domestic partnership laws in place -- if the constitutional amendment is passed by voters and overturns the court ruling or an as-yet-unplanned attempt to gut a piece of current legislation to pass a marriage equality bill -- the antigay forces will go after all LGBT legal rights.

Such was the case recently in Michigan when on May 7 the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that their 2004 voter-passed antigay marriage initiative also prohibits local governments and state universities from offering health insurance to the partners of gay workers, according to the
Detroit News.

During the May 15 conference call with reporters, Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, and several of the attornies on the call said they did not know exactly what would happen if voters passed the constitutional ban.

But, Kors said:

Nonetheless, LGBT groups have to now raise between $15-20 million -- during this very important election season and an economically-strapped economy -- to counter the $15-20 million the Protect Marriage forces intend to shell out.

But for now -- LGBT people throughout the state are jumping with the joy of equality -- including our allies. Here's a late statement from actor/director Rob Reiner: