Following Monday’s San Francisco Superior Court ruling that denying same-sex couples in California the right to marry is unconstitutional, roughly 35 marriage equality supporters rallied on University Avenue outside Exotic Bamboo Nursery, Imports and Teas that night, waving signs and cheering as rush hour commuters honked their support.

“We’re here today to celebrate and talk about how the fight is going to go on,” said Anthony White, events coordinator for the local chapter of Equality California. “This is just the beginning.”

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer set a legal milestone in the state when he ruled Monday that withholding marriage licenses from same-sex couples violates state constitutional rights to equal protection and that, by itself, the state’s definition of marriage does not justify that violation.

“It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners,” Kramer wrote. “…The state’s protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional.”

Kramer, a Republican Catholic, also wrote, “The parade of horrible social ills envisioned by the opponents of same-sex marriage is not a necessary result from recognizing that there is a fundamental right to choose who one wants to marry.”

The case, Woo v. Lockyer, is the consolidation of two lawsuits filed last March by the city of San Francisco and 12 same-sex couples, represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union, seeking to overturn the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. The lawsuits were filed after the state halted San Francisco’s issuance of gender-neutral marriage licenses March 11.

Those weddings began April 12 when Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city/county clerks’ office to issue gender-neutral marriage licenses, saying he was upholding his constitutional oath in doing so. The 4,000-plus same-sex marriage licenses were invalidated by the state Supreme Court in August.

Woo v. Lockyer names Attorney General Bill Lockyer as a defendant representing the state. The Alliance Defense Fund along with The Campaign for California Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund joined in the defense. Lockyer said last October that it was up to voters or the Legislature to decide whether to change “the common and traditional understanding” of matrimony that “pre-dates the founding of this state or nation.”

One argument brought by the defense was that same-sex marriage isn’t necessary since the Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act, which grants same-sex couples all of the state’s marriage rights, went into effect Jan. 1.

Kramer discounted the argument in his ruling, saying that it “smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts – separate but equal.”

Alliance Defense Fund attorney Robert Tyler said the group would appeal Monday’s ruling. They have 60 days to do so.

“As more people talk about this decision, more people will realize how unfair it is that we do not have the same opportunities as everyone else in the state,” said San Diego Democratic Club President Stephen Whitburn at Monday’s rally in Hillcrest. “But while today is a very good day for us, again, we have some real struggles ahead. Today’s decision is going to anger the people who would like to keep marriage for themselves. … This is going to inspire people nationwide to try to write discrimination into the federal constitution.”

It is widely speculated that the case will make its way to the state Supreme Court, possibly by the end of the year. If upheld on appeal, California will follow Massachusetts in granting full state marriage rights to same-sex couples. The 1,138 federally granted marriage rights are still denied to married same-sex couples due to Defense of Marriage Act legislation.

Marriage Equality California San Diego chapter leader Nadine Jernewall said California was the first state, in 1948, to overturn the ban on interracial marriage. “It took until 1967 for the whole country get on board and to do what’s right. This is a great state to be in, and I have every confidence that California will also be one of the states leading the way for marriage equality for same-sex couples.”

Kramer cited the 1948 case, Perez v. Sharp, in his ruling, as well as Brown v. The Board of Education and Lawrence v. Texas, among others.

Equality California’s White said efforts will be stepped up to get a constitutional amendment passed in the state banning same-sex marriage before Woo v. Lockyer reaches the state Supreme Court, or AB 19, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, has a chance to make its way through the Legislature. Two bills, SB 6 and AB 3, are on their way through the Legislature. If passed, a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage would be put before California voters in November.

Thirteen states have already passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

“We need to have a conversation with every San Diegan to ask them to oppose any constitutional amendment that would write discrimination into the constitution against us,” Whitburn said.

On MSNBC’s Monday night edition of “Hardball”, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was asked if he would push for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage should the state Supreme Court rule in favor of same-sex marriage, to which he replied, “No, absolutely not.”