The Los Angeles Times (as well as every other major news outlet) is now reporting on the California Supreme Court’s decision earlier today to lift the ban on same-sex marriage. Maura Dolan reports:

The court held that people have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice and struck down marriage laws limiting matrimony to opposite-sex couples as a violation of the state constitution’s equal protection guarantees.

“One of the core elements embodied in the state constitutional right to marry is the right of an individual and a couple to have their own official family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationships of other couples,” wrote Chief Justice Ronald M. George, joined by Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.

An interesting element of this story that has gone relatively unnoticed is that a major factor in the majority decision was the interpretation that state laws limiting gay unions to domestic partnerships “impinge upon the fundamental interests of same-sex couples,” according to Chief Justice George.

The most likely result from this line of thinking will be that in the future, when a political body debates the merits of civil unions as compared to full-fledged legalization of gay marriage, there will be more concerted efforts to fight civil unions on the grounds that they will lead down a slippery slope to gay marriage legalization. What may seem on its face to be a great victory for those pushing to remove the ban, may in the future be seen as a decision that strengthened the traditionalists and hurt any incrementalist strategy that the gay rights lobby had been hoping to deploy. Maybe that’s just wishful thinking on my part.

Opponents of same-sex marriage in California are hoping a statewide ballot measure will overturn the Supreme Court decision:

Opponents of same-sex marriage in California expressed dismay after the state’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of the unions today, but said the ruling will likely galvanize supporters of November ballot measure that would bar same-sex marriages.

“This is yet another example of why the people need to go to the polls in November to defend the historic and natural definition of marriage,” said Ron Prentice, executive director of the Sacramento and Riverside-based California Family Council which opposes same-sex marriage.

A coalition of religious and conservative activists has submitted 1.1 million signatures to qualify a constitutional amendment for the November ballot that would say that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The secretary of state’s office is currently conducting a random sample of the signatures and is scheduled to announce by June 18 whether there are sufficient signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.

It seems that rather than resolving an already divisive issue, the recent decision has only further angered supporters of traditional marriage, who now can only hope that the decision will be placed into the hands of the people on election day.