(CNSNews.com) - The California Supreme Court issued a ruling Thursday that puts homosexual marriage back in the political spotlight.

In a 4-3 decision, the justices legalized same-sex marriage in the nation's most populous state--nullifying the state's law limiting marriage to one man and one woman and the 2000 referendum upon which it was based.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ronald George, said: "In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry--and their central importance to an individual's opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society--the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation."

George also noted that "in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation..."

Homosexual activists were jubilant at the outcome--which makes California the second state in the union to create same-sex marriage, after Massachusetts, which did so in 2003.

"This is a historic and landmark day for those who value fairness and opportunity," said Shannon Price Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who argued the case on behalf of the 14 same-sex couples that challenged California's marriage law.

Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, said the decision validates San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision in 2004 to allow more than 4,000 homosexual marriages to be performed at San Francisco City Hall.

"We are confident that Californians will respect the court's ruling for fairness and opportunity and affirm that lesbian and gay Californians deserve full equality under the law."

Newsom's two word response to the decision: "We won."

Attorney Evan Wolfson of the Freedom to Marry Coalition, meantime, predicted gay marriages will likely soon resume in San Francisco--even if the decision is taken to federal court. He praised the California justices for relying upon a 1940s-era decision banning interracial marriage.

"As with their courageous past stands against discrimination in marriage, we will all be the better and history will vindicate them," Wolfson said in a statement.

'Trashes' the voters' will

Conservatives who defend traditional marriage pledge to fight on legally, in hopes the decision prompts a backlash at the ballot box.

"This ruling defies logic," said Mat Staver, the attorney representing conservative groups who joined in defending the ban.

"It is a gross departure from the rule of law. It is outrageous. Traditional marriage is common sense. Yet, this decision is nonsense," Staver said. "No matter how you stretch California's Constitution, you cannot find anywhere in its text, its history, or tradition that now, after so many years, it magically protects what most societies condemn."

Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, whose organization went to court in 2004 to stop Newsom, noted that today's ruling "trashed" Proposition 22--the initiative that California voters overwhelmingly approved in 2000, which served as the basis for the homosexual marriage ban.

"This is so wrong, for so many reasons," Thomasson told Cybercast News Service. "It trashes the will of the voters. Massachusetts' judges did it really wrong--now California's judges have done it really, really wrong. This isn't making a judgment-it is pushing an agenda."

Concerned Women for America's Matt Barber predicted backlash to the California court's decision--which he termed "the worst kind of judicial activism."

"So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage," Barber said "If people who engage in homosexual behavior want to dress up and play house, that's their prerogative, but we shouldn't destroy the institutions of legitimate marriage and family in order to help facilitate a counterfeit."

Next step: amend the state constitution

Conservative organizations, meanwhile, have turned in petitions with more than 1 million signatures in an attempt to get an initiative on the November ballot to amend the state Constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

If the petitions pass muster, the measure would go on the November ballot. If approved by voters, the amendment would override any court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.

But the initiative faces an uphill battle. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today said he would abide by the state Supreme Court's ruling and reiterated a previous pledge he made to oppose any state marriage protection amendment.

"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "As I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, meanwhile, thinks homosexual marriage could become an issue in the presidential campaign.

"Both of the Democratic candidates, Obama and Clinton, have said that they support benefits for same-sex couples, but they oppose same-sex marriage," Sprigg told Cybercast News Service.

"I think that it will put them on the post to be asked whether they support this union or not. On the other hand, I would hope that it would draw out John McCain and get him to make a stronger statement in support of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman than he has up to this point, at the very least in defense of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, which both Obama and Clinton would like to amend," Sprigg said.

California's neighbor, Arizona, took note of the decision. On Thursday, the Arizona House of Representatives voted to put on the ballot a proposed state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. The measure now moves on to the Arizona Senate. A similar ban was defeated at the polls in 2006.

More than 40 states, meanwhile, have adopted either state constitutional amendments or state laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Make media inquiries or request an interview about this article.

Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-brief.

E-mail a comment or news tip to Pete Winn.