"Couples in Canada, California, Massachusetts, South Africa and Spain are all doing better; they're happy, they're celebrating," he said, referring to the nations and states where same-sex couples can marry. "Meanwhile, the gays didn't use up all the marriage licenses. There is still plenty of marriage to share."

The ruling was thrilling for the plaintiffs, eight couples who sued in 2004 after they tried to get wedding licenses. Gay and lesbian couples celebrated the ruling first with a rally on the steps of the Capitol and then a party at a downtown Hartford hotel.

Some, like lead plaintiffs Elizabeth Kerrigan and Jody Mock of West Hartford, began planning their weddings.

"So, wow. Surreal, very surreal; that's just what I'm feeling right now," Mock said. "I'm just ecstatic. It's such a relief, the joy of it."

"We've always dreamed of being married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, who sued with her partner, Carole Conklin. "Even though we were lesbians and didn't know if that would ever come true, we always dreamed of it."

The plaintiffs declined to drop their lawsuit when Connecticut approved civil unions, saying they wanted full marriage rights. At the time, no other state had granted so many rights to gay couples without being ordered to do so by a court.

In the majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote that denying marriage to same-sex couples would create separate standards.

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Palmer wrote.

Three justices issued separate dissenting opinions.

Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote that he believes there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, and that the court's majority failed to discuss the purpose of marriage laws, which he said is to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct."

Zarella added, "The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court."

Senior Associate Justice David M. Bordon cited Connecticut's civil union's law passed in 2005 and said there is no conclusive evidence that civil unions are inferior to marriages.

"It is simply too early to know this with any reasonable measure of certitude," Borden wrote.

The ruling overturns a decision from New Haven Superior Court. It becomes effective Oct. 28, and weddings are expected to begin within days after the lower court holds a hearing to implement the high court's ruling.