Same-sex marriage opponents called news conferences and issued statements calling Kramer an activist judge whose convolution of law and common sense will spur the public to amend state and federal constitutions to ban same-sex marriage once and for all.

It'll take a while to figure out who's right. Even now, California lawmakers face legislation representing the two extremes.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, has put forth Assembly Bill 19, which would change state law so that marriage is defined as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons" — gender-neutral. The bill pends before the Assembly Judiciary Committee with no hearing date set.

And state Sen. Bill Morrow, R-Oceanside, has put forth Senate Constitutional Amendment 1, which would enshrine in the state's most fundamental legal document a section saying, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere." It's scheduled for an April 5 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Morrow dryly acknowledged Friday it will be "an uphill battle" to get SCA 1 through the Democrat-dominated Legislature. So be it, he said.

"I do believe that Judge Kramer's decision is resulting in grassroots upheaval, people are going to be energized on this," Morrow said, adding that he believes the ruling is being met with, "by and large, a hostile reaction."

If the Legislature won't pass SCA 1, "we might have to look elsewhere," he said.

"Elsewhere" most likely will be the June 2006 ballot, the earliest election in which a constitutional amendment could be put to voters.

Leno believes Kramer's decision will make lawmakers likelier to pass his AB 19, but agreed it will make conservatives more determined to pursue a constitutional amendment in June 2006.

"We have a lot of educating to do between now and then, a lot of hard work ... but we would go to the ballot for that referendum with the governor on our side," he said.

Or at least not on the other side. Leno noted that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last Monday told MSNBC's Chris Matthews that he would "absolutely not" move to try to change the state constitution should the state Supreme Court lift the statutory ban on same-sex marriage. "Whatever the Supreme Court decides, that's exactly what I will stay with," the governor said.

With the state's most popular Republican refusing to back an amendment, Leno said, "I think we would win, which would turn the tide of the debate in this country."

"Of course, it's unfortunate that anyone should have to fight for civil rights on a ballot," Leno added. "If ending discrimination was as easy as just asking the majority to end its tyranny of the minority, we wouldn't have civil rights movements.

"Civil rights historically have been decided by a clean read of the constitution in our high courts. That's why we have the judicial branch of government — it's a check and balance to the power of a majority vote, a brilliant design of our founding fathers."

Leno noted that when California ended its ban on interracial marriage in 1948, only 4 percent of Americans favored it. "Talk about activist judges! And 4 percent support — we have 10 times that."

Meanwhile on the federal front, Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Gold River, a former California Attorney General, on Thursday introduced a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage in the United States as the legal union of one man and one woman, and barring judges from defining it otherwise.

In a news release, Lungren accused judges of taking it upon themselves "to engage in social engineering aimed at the redefinition of this foundational societal institution ... Such judicial intolerance is an act of lawlessness and must not be allowed to stand."

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution must be approved by two-thirds votes in the House and the Senate, and then by majority votes in three quarters of the states' legislatures. Right now, Republicans hold the majority of both legislative houses in 21 states, while Democrats control 17 states; the rest are split. The president can make his opinion known, but has no direct role in a constitutional amendment.

Contact Josh Richman at jrichman@angnewspapers.com