16-year-old California resident, Rachel Artellan was excited about the U.S. 9th Circuit Court's decision Tuesday morning.
"I like girls, so I might want to get married one day," said Artellan.
On Tuesday, the Federal Court struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.
Proposition 8 was passed on California's ballot in 2008 and limited marriage to a man and a woman.
San Francisco's Mayor took the time to speak out about the ruling as well.
"This is the greatest opportunity for civil rights for this generation and it's one I truly am celebrating," said Mayor Edwin Lee.
The ruling aserts banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
But not everyone is celebrating the court's decision.
"I'm not for it, marriage should be between a man and a woman," said California resident Patricia Falkenhagen.
Eric Day, who's also a California resident agreed, "I just believe same sex marriage is not right, it was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve."
Those in support of same-sex marriage say it's a constitutional right, while people supporting Proposition 8 contend that traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of society.
"I say man should marry woman and no in between," said Rebecca Sharp of California.
Earlier Tuesday, the Court said "Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California."
The Court's decision will likely only affect California, but ripples from the ruling are reaching Southern Oregon as well.
"I'm hoping this will set a precedent and create change across the board," said Janelle Wilson, Coordinator at the Queer Resource Center at Southern Oregon University.
Back in California, Artellan says she's happy with the Court's ruling, which she says supports her right to the pursuit of happiness.
Now the group backing proposition 8, named "Protect Marriage," will have to decide whether they will appeal the court's ruling.
If the group decides to appeal, the issue will go to the Supreme Court or a larger panel of the 9th Circuit.