From In re Marriage Cases 5/15/08 :

We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, 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.

…We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution.

Furthermore, the circumstance that the current California statutes assign a different name for the official family relationship of same-sex couples as contrasted with the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause. In analyzing the validity of this differential treatment under the latter clause, we first must determine which standard of review should be applied to the statutory classification here at issue. Although in most instances the deferential “rational basis” standard of review is applicable in determining whether different treatment accorded by a statutory provision violates the state equal protection clause, a more exacting and rigorous standard of review — “strict scrutiny” — is applied when the distinction drawn by a statute rests upon a so-called “suspect classification” or impinges upon a fundamental right. As we shall explain, although we do not agree with the claim advanced by the parties challenging the validity of the current statutory scheme6 that the applicable statutes properly should be viewed as an conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage –cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.

[Below the fold: California Govorner speaks on ruling; Links to organizations’ media releases on the ruling]

From the Associated Press/Fresno Bee:

The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

…Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger released the following statement today regarding the state Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage:

“I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.“

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

San Diego LGBT Center/Center Advocacy: Fairness Wins: A Victory for Marriage!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lambda Legal: Victory! CA High Court Says Same-Sex Couples Can Marry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HRC: CALIFORNIA BECOMES SECOND STATE TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

National Center For Lesbian Rights: Lesbian and Gay Couples Win Freedom to Marry in California

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force hails historic California Supreme Court decision supporting the freedom to marry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Freedom To Marry: California Ends Gay Couples’ Exclusion From Marriage

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~