With a quick internet search, Ifound what he was talking about. Zach was right. A few hours before, theCalifornia Supreme Court ruled thatlimiting marriage to a man and a woman was unlawful discrimination. Perhaps what opened my eyes the most was when the Chief Justice, Ronald M. George, compared his court’s ruling to the1948 decision to strike down the ban oninterracial marriage banning “whites from marrying non whites.”

Is not allowingallpeople in committed relationships, not just the straight ones, a right to marriage, as bad as telling two people they can’t be together based on the color of their skin?

This is big, I thought.Especially right now, as our country evaluates its character through a careful lens, during a divisive election, during a divisive year, in the cradle of a turbulent world. Especially right now, as talk of political change, bipartisan compromise and dissatisfaction with the same old politics dominates a youth-centric election season.

Whilethe celebration spread last Thursday in LGBT communities in D.C. and across the country, groups like theCampaign for California Families and theMarriage Law Foundation set up campaigns to challenge the ruling. As I learned, if these groups collect roughly 694,000 “legitimate” signatures (out of the 1.1 million they’ve already collected), Chief Justice George’s ruling might have to take a back seat to the sentiment of the voters, whatever way it may swing, this November.

While each side settles in with the new law, gay and lesbian couples are racing to the California alter, much like a similar rulingin 2004 allowed (which was actually overturned by voters in the 2004 election) to define the meaning of a modern family. .