One of the most monumental events in gay rights occurred on the afternoon of May 15, 2008. The state Supreme Court of California struck down the state’s ban on gay marriage, paving the way for legalization. Governor Schwarzenegger has stated that he will comply with the ruling. The governor has also voiced his opposition to amending the state constitution to restrict marriage to a man and a woman.

Needless to say, this event will have huge implications. California is the nation’s most populous state, and conservative groups have already submitted a petition to bring the issue of gay marriage to a referendum. Powerful interests from outside of Califronia will undoubtedly intervene, donating large sums of money to finance a vicious campaign. The ruling could even have an impact on the presidential campaign, resurrecting a heated social issue for the 2008 presidential race. This would probably work to the advantage of McCain, giving him an opportunity to win over the “Reagan Democrats” that Obama has such a hard time securing.

The long term impact of this ruling will be even more profound, provided that the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage fails. With a population of nearly 38 million, California is a far less obscure state than Massachusetts (the only other state where gay marriage is legal). This means that the Golden State will provide a better laboratory for testing the predictions of social conservatives about the negative effects gay marriage has on society. What happens in California often blows east. I would not be surprised if other liberal states (ex. New Jersey, Maryland, even Oregon) follow in California’s footsteps in the near futute. Furthermore, California does not have a provision in its lawbooks prohibiting same sex marriages consummated in California from being recognized in other states (like Massachusetts). This means that the issue of whether or not states must recognizes gay marriages from other states will be brought to the forefront.

Whether or not it was right for the California Supreme Court to exercise “judicial activism” in this instance will be debated for years to come. Considering that school integration and interracial marriage rights were also products of judicial activism, I am inclined to support the Supreme Court. Either way, this ruling was monumental.