SAN FRANCISCO -- A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional -- a legal milestone that, if upheld on appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer struck down not only the state's one man-one woman marriage law but also Proposition 22, a 2000 voter initiative that prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.
The judge said that both laws violate the civil rights of gays and lesbians because they "implicate the basic human right to marry a person of one's choice."
Kramer's decision is stayed automatically for 60 days to allow time for appeal.
Conservative groups that oppose same-sex marriage said they would do just that. They also predicted the judge's ruling would spark an effort to amend the state Constitution to ban gay nuptials, as was done in 13 other states last year.
"For a single judge to rule there is no conceivable purpose for preserving marriage as one man and one woman is mind-boggling," said Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver.
The group represents the Campaign for California Families, one of two organizations that joined the California attorney general's office in defending California's existing laws.
"This decision will be gasoline on the fire of the pro-marriage movement in California as well as the rest of the country," Staver said.
Supporters of same-sex marriage said they are prepared for a lengthy appeal process, but described Kramer's ruling as an unqualified victory. They compared it to the 1948 state Supreme Court decision that made California the first state in the nation to legalize interracial marriage.
"Today's ruling is an important step toward a more fair and just California that rejects discrimination and affirms family values for all California families," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.
Kramer's decision came in a pair of lawsuits seeking to overturn California's statutory ban on gay marriage. They were brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March, after the California Supreme Court halted the four-week marriage spree Mayor Gavin Newsom had initiated when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.
A jovial Newsom was flanked by several same-sex couples and their supporters at a City Hall news conference shortly after the ruling was announced.
"We will not be appealing this decision," the mayor joked as the crowd broke into laughter.
Jeanne Rizzo, 58, and Pali Cooper, 49, one of the first couples to be denied the chance to marry after the Supreme Court ruling last year, said they were "basking" in Monday's decision.
"We know we have many steps ahead of us, but we have the opportunity to go from here standing in dignity not defense. ... It is always better to do that," Rizzo said.
The couples, represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union, had argued that denying marriage to same-sex couples violated their civil rights. That includes the right to equal protection under the law and to be free of gender-based discrimination.
Attorney General Bill Lockyer argued that tradition dictates that marriage should be restricted to opposite-sex couples. But Kramer said the state's traditional definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the unconstitutional denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians and their right to marry.
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote.
Lockyer also cited the state's domestic partners law, the strongest in the nation outside of Vermont's civil unions, as evidence that California does not discriminate against gays.
Kramer rejected that argument, however, citing Brown vs. Board of Education, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down segregated schools.
"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts -- separate but equal," the judge wrote.
Two groups opposed to gay marriage rights, The Campaign for California Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, argued that the state has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples as a way of encouraging procreation.
Kramer disagreed.
"One does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married," he wrote. "Thus, no legitimate state interest to justify the preclusion of same-sex marriage can be found."
Gay marriage opponents were particularly upset by Kramer's decision to nullify Proposition 22, the ballot measure that was approved by 61 percent of voters. The measure declared that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
"The practical effect is the disregard of close to two-thirds of the people of California who used the initiative process to ensure that marriage would remain between one man and one woman," said Robert Tyler, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund.
"It's inappropriate for the court to disregard the will of the people and to create an argument within the Constitution that didn't exist before."
Monday's ruling is the latest development in a national debate on the legality and morality of same-sex marriage that has been raging since 2003, when the highest court in Massachusetts decided that denying gay couples the right to wed was unconstitutional in that state.
Kramer is the fourth trial court judge since August to decide that the right to marry and its attendant benefits must be extended to same-sex couples. Two Washington state judges, ruling last summer in separate cases, held that prohibiting same-sex marriage violates that state's constitution, and on Feb. 4, a judge in Manhattan ruled in favor of five gay couples who had been denied marriage licenses by New York City. That ruling applies only in the city but could extend statewide if upheld on appeal. Similar cases are pending in trial courts in Connecticut and Maryland.
Just as many judges have gone the other way in recent months, however, refusing to accept the argument that keeping gays and lesbians from marrying violates their civil rights. A New Jersey judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by seven gay couples fighting to have their unions legally recognized. Most recently, the Indiana Court of Appeals in January upheld that state's gay marriage ban. All the cases are on appeal.
The California lawsuits have been closely watched because of San Francisco's historical role as a gay rights battleground. The state has the highest percentage of same-sex partners in the nation, and its Legislature has gone further than any other in voluntarily providing gay couples the perks of marriage without a court order.
A pair of bills pending before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If California voters follow the 13 other states that approved such amendments last year, that would put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts.
The case is Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding, No. 4365, Marriage Cases.
Copyright 2006 by KTVU.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Video On Demand: Randy Shandobil On Gay Marriage Decision
Tahoe Days, Reno Nights 
Access The Diamond Certified Directory
Bay Area Crime Reports 
10 Ways To Boost Your Confidence
Earthquake Reports 
Celebrity Gossip 
Take The Drama Out Of Home Buying
