Not even three years out of law school, in 1990, I acted against the advice of caring and wellintentioned mentors and "threw it all away" by leaving private practice and joining the 12-year-old New England-wide legal advocacy group GLAD, or Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, as its first staff attorney. Like so many others before me - lawyers and nonlawyers alike - I believe no effort to fulfill our country's fundamental promise of "equal justice under law" is ever wasted. It must have been bred into me because I have always been inspired by regular people-including those in my own family and community - whose quest for equal opportunities are the foundation of civil rights movements. I went to law school because I wanted to do my part in creating a justice and a jurisprudence that do not depend on personal characteristics or accidents of birth, and GLAD gave me that opportunity.

In the beginning, GLAD took on issues from job discrimination and anti-gay violence to securing custody and adoption rights based on a child's best interests. The principles were clear: There should be no privileged places in law based on sexual orientation. But we could not tackle everything at once, so early on we drew the line at marriage - not because it was the wrong goal, but because it was not yet the right time.

Persistent and principled advocacy of people from all walks of life helped build new structures of equality and brought forth the day when our relationships with one another could take center stage. In Vermont in 1997, GLAD teamed up with lawyers Beth Robinson and Susan Murray and called the question about why the state withholds marriage and all its protections from committed same-sex couples. Could a fundamental right for all be denied only to gay and lesbian couples? The ruling in Baker v. State of Vermont broke new ground in acknowledging gay people's "common humanity" and in requiring the legislature to provide the same state-based legal protections to same-sex couples. The legislature then passed the nation's first "civil unions" law in 2000.

When I stood before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in March 2003 arguing the Goodridge v. Dep't of Public Health case on behalf of seven couples seeking the freedom to marry, I urged the justices to avoid Vermont's civil union compromise - and they did. Breaking a historic barrier, that court ruled for the couples in words that made many grown people weep: "The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens." More than 10,000 Massachusetts couples have married since 2004. There has been an outbreak of happiness. Seeing how families are more secure, the wider community has largely come to support marriage equality. The state legislature has overwhelmingly refused to advance to the ballot an amendment to reinstate marriage discrimination or create a "gay exception" to the equality principle.

Now, California's high court has added its powerful voice to condemn the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. The court found that the right to marry is fundamental for all persons, including gay people. Further, sexual orientation does not affect a person's ability to establish a relationship and raise children. Other means of respecting family relationships, like domestic partnership laws, still deny same-sex couples "equal dignity and respect." And invigorating a long-stalled debate about how sexual orientation classifications should be regarded in law, the California court ruled squarely that statutes classifying on the basis of sexual orientation will be a constitutionally suspect basis on which to impose different treatment.

The quest to secure the equal dignity and worth of every person is a profound part of our collective history, ethos, and psyche. The California decision is another milestone in that quest for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people throughout the country and for equal justice under law everywhere. Congratulations, California!