The California Supreme Court said Friday its decision on the legality of same-sex marriage in California will be made public Tuesday.

The ruling is expected to address whether gays and lesbians can marry in the state. It also will address whether the marriages of thousands of same-sex couples who wed during a five-month window in California last year are still legally recognized in the state.

Now, the same seven justices who last year said a simple statute banning same-sex marriage was unconstititional are deciding if Proprosition 8, a Constitutional amendment to ban the practice, passes legal muster.

In reality, it is no longer Prop. 8. Since voters approved the measure last November, the ban on same-sex marriage is actually now Article 1, Sec. 7.5 of the California Constitution.

Although the names Susan Bauer and Colleen Francis may not be in the court's decision, their fate is. They were the first same-sex couple to get a license and get married at San Diego County's San Marcos offices on June 17, 2008, the first day gays and lesbians could marry in California.

They fear the state's highest court will erase that marriage.

"I am very nervous right now," said Bauer, 55, a Vista resident. "Our marriage validated what we had for 16 years. … The fact that they might take that away from us would be devastating."

The concern is for practical reasons, too, Bauer said, because the marriage also meant her new wife immediately received the benefit of Bauer's health insurance -- something Bauer said the insurance company would not provide when the two women were just registered domestic partners.

Vista resident Penny Harrington, a supporter of the ban on same-sex marriage and a member of Concerned Women of America of California, said the coming court decision is "critically important to the concept of 'we the people.'"

"Our state Constitution provides for citizens to amend that document," Harrington said. "The court must uphold the millions of votes in favor of Prop. 8 or set a dire precedent for future initiatives."

A second court decision on gay marriage

The state Supreme Court looked at three issues:

- Whether the new law is illegal on its face, because it strips people of civil rights;

- Whether putting the issue on the ballot improperly circumvented the method of revising the state constitution;

- And last, whether the same-sex marriages performed last year are valid.

This is the second time the same justices are looking at the issue of marriage for gays and lesbians, an issue that remains as divisive and emotionally charged as that of legalized abortion.

In November 2000, about 63 percent of the electorate voted for Proposition 22, a ban on marriage for same-sex couples.

In May 2008, the state's high court heard a challenge to Prop. 22. Four of the seven justices found the law to be unconstitutional, and ordered counties to allow gays and lesbians to wed starting in June.

Fast-forward to November 2008, when 52 percent of voters backed Prop. 8.

The Prop. 8 ballot language consisted of the same 14 words as had Prop. 22: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

But this time, it was a change to the state Constitution. Same-sex weddings stopped.

Same-sex marriage advocates challenged the legality of Prop. 8 the day after the election.

The California Supreme Court heard arguments two months ago. The coming ruling is their decision on the matter.

In the time since the justices heard arguments over Prop. 8, three other states -- Iowa, Vermont and Maine -- have legalized marriage between same-sex couples, either through legislation or court rulings.

New Hampshire may be set to follow suit soon, with that state's governor saying he would back the law if it included protections for churches. Massachusetts already allows same-sex marriage. Dozens of states have bans on the practice.

"We are so close," Max Disposti, the founder of the North County LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) Coalition said of the push for same-sex marriage nationwide. "I think it is just a matter of time. Those decisions, some from court, some from legislatures, just show you where the country is going. It is a good sign for us.

"But how much it will affect us here in California with the court decision, I really don't know. We are trying to be optimistic. But we are realistic."

Anne Subia thinks there is a good chance the court will find the constitutional amendment to be valid. The Rancho Bernardo woman works with a statewide association known as the Pastors' Rapid Response Team, which supported the effort to limit marriage to the traditional interpretation as one man and one woman.

"We know that it is coming," Subia said of the decision. "And we anticipate this ruling will keep traditional marriage in the California Constitution."

Local voters, money backed Prop. 8

Most of North County, save for Encinitas and Del Mar, voted to ban same-sex marriage in the Nov. 4 election. The region also donated $1.2 million to the campaign, more than 10 times the amount of local money collected in support of gay marriage.

In Southwest Riverside County, voters not only nixed same-sex marriage last November, but got out their wallets. The people who wanted to see gay marriage banned forked out $256,000, while the pro-gay-marriage folks donated just under $10,000.

Gay marriage has remained a hot topic.

At a meeting last week, Vista Unified School District trustees debated board member Jim Gibson's push to honor Vista High School graduate Carrie Prejean, who competed as Miss California in the nationally televised Miss USA Pageant last month.

Asked by a gay pageant judge about her stance on same-sex marriage, Prejean said marriage should be only between a man and a woman. The 21-year-old Prejean was the first runner-up in the national pageant; some argued that her answer cost her the crown.

The situation created a firestorm of controversy, and made her a darling of opponents of same-sex marriage.

Gibson's bid for a "Carrie Prejean Day," which drew a number of heated comments at the meeting, failed when no other school board members would second his proposal.

If the Prejean brouhaha is any indication, the furor over same-sex marriage will continue.

And no matter the state Supreme Court's decision, the battle will continue to rage, say advocates on both sides of the issue.

Supporters of Prop. 8 said they were not aware of any North County events planned by their side on the day the decision is issued.

"We've already celebrated," said Terry "Skip" Curtis, a Vista resident who helped coordinate some of the local efforts to pass Prop. 8. "We celebrated when we won. I would be extremely surprised if the justices did not uphold the will of the people."

Supporters of same-sex marriage say they plan to rally in Escondido at 6 p.m. Tuesday, no matter which way the decision goes.

The opinion will be available on the California courts' Web site at 10 a.m. Tuesday. Go to http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/

Contact staff writer Teri Figueroa at 760-740-5442.