“We think that providing equal access to the institution [of marriage] is a step in the right direction, but obviously we’re more interested in creating awareness of BGLT issues,” Schneider said.

Not only did the ruling affect members of the Harvard community, but several of the main players in the case were also connected to Harvard.

Five of the seven justices are Harvard alums, and Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall was the University’s general counsel before being appointed to the court.

Lead plaintiff Julie N.W. Goodridge met her partner Hillary F. Goodridge at a 1985 Harvard lecture on divestment from apartheid South Africa.

Hillary Goodridge was especially pleased that today’s ruling seems to prevent the legislature from substituting civil unions for legal marriage.

“I don’t think it would do me a lot of good if I was travelling in Nebraska and said, ‘This is my civil partner,’” she said. “What is that?”

Robert D. Compton, a lecturer at the Dental School, was another plaintiff in today’s case. He said that he and his partner, David L. Wilson, were denied a marriage license in March of 2001.

“They were very polite, very nice, but said I needed to have a bride with me,” Compton said.

Soon thereafter, Compton, Wilson and six other couples filed suit to force Massachusetts to grant them licenses.

“We were looking for a civil relationship and recognition by society,” Compton said.

And Compton said that gay relationships and marriages will gradually achieve this recognition.

“When people see that these things do happen and the earth doesn’t come to a standstill and God doesn’t send lightning bolts down to earth, people get over it,” he said.

—Associated Press material was used in the reporting of this story.