Perkins predicted that the California decision would encourage same-sex couples from across the country to get married in California, then return to their home states and challenge those governments to recognize their same-sex marriages.
California's ban on gay marriage, which was based on a law passed in 1977 and a statewide initiative in 2000, had limited a formal marriage to a man and a woman. Today's ruling deemed those laws unconstitutional because they violated the California state constitution protecting equality and fundamental rights.
Under existing California legislation, same-sex couples shared many of the same legal rights and responsibilties as their married heterosexual counterparts, including the right to divorce and receive child support.
But Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said that the court's "strongly worded statement" offered two additional points he described as "extremely important."
"First, there is no compelling reason to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry," he said. "Also, there was a separate institution that same-sex couples were confined to. That separate institution, the decision said, caused a real and lasting negative impact on same-sex couples in the state."
George's statement, according to Solmonese, "went beyond just recognizing same-sex marriage but had very strong things to say about the circumstances around it."
California is now the second state, after Massachusetts, to give gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.
Kendell, whose organization filed the case four years ago on behalf of 14 lesbian and gay couples and two organizations, said, "The greatest challenge [throughout the legal process] has been realizing what is at stake and hoping desperately that the court would give the issues a fair hearing and to rule based on just the fundamental role of the court and interpretation of the law."
While expressing relief and joy at the decision, Kendell said that the fundamental arguments were irrefutable.
"When you think of basic human dignity, there is no quarrel," she said. "There is no argument, neighbor to neighbor, over whether a lesbian or gay couple choosing to make a commitment of a lifetime together should have the same recognition as anyone else."