A judge in California ruled the state's gay marriage ban unconstitutional March 14.
The Washington Post reported that San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said there was "no rational motive" to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying. He compared the case to laws that once prevented interracial marriages, according to the article.
The lawsuits were brought by the city of San Francisco and 12 same-sex couples last March after the California Supreme Court stopped the city from issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples in violation of state law. The court later nullified the unions.
Kramer relied on the equal protection clause in California's constitution to support his ruling, according to Dean Marcus, an adjunct professor at the Washington College of Law. The clause is similar to the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"[The court's] decision flows quite logically from earlier decisions ... that there is a fundamental right to personal autonomy," Marcus said.
He added that it is important to remember that the case was heard in a state court, not a federal court; therefore, the case will not make it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Stephen Wermiel, an associate law professor at WCL, said this case cannot be looked upon as a federal issue because the U.S. Supreme Court has no power over the case. However, he said, he believes much of the United States is waiting for the gay marriage issue to be decided in a federal court.
It is unclear if the U.S. Supreme Court would reach the same decision as the California Superior Court, Marcus said. In similar cases it has been argued that procreation would suffer if gay marriage were legalized, he said, but he believes the traditional perception of marriage is the main concern of many Americans.
The final word about the case will be with the California Supreme Court if it is appealed or with state voters if a gay marriage ban is proposed as an amendment to the state constitution as has occurred in other states, Wermiel said.
Mike Inganamort, president of the AU College Republicans, said he thinks Congress should make a ruling about gay marriage.
"This is an example of some of the confusion about this issue," he said. When there are different judges ruling differently in separate states, there is confusion among all political parties, he said.
Joe Gallina, vice president of the AU College Democrats, said he is happy that the issue has gotten more attention and debate.
"It's one of the most politically divisive issues that faces the country today," he said.
Mindy Michels, director of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Ally Resource Center at AU, said she is excited about the ruling and hopes for full and equal marriage rights in the future for same-sex couples.
"Certainly the positive court rulings have made us very optimistic," she said.
Allison Waithe, president of Queers & Allies and a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences, said the outcome is difficult to predict since the ruling occurred in a lower court.
There has been a sort of "conservative backlash" from people feeling that the institution of marriage will be violated if gay marriage is legalized, she said.
