On the flip side, there was dissent from Justice Moreno. Below is an excerpt from the dissent.

Proposition 8 represents an unprecedented instance of a majority of voters altering the meaning of the equal protection clause by modifying the California Constitution to require deprivation of a fundamental right on the basis of a suspect classification. The majority’s holding is not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

This could not have been the intent of those who devised and enacted the initiative process. In my view, the aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution.

For a complete list of these events, please visit http://www.dayofdecision.com.

I’d also encourage you to watch this video made by HRC. Pretty touching.

More to come.

“Newsom reached out to the Supreme Court and asked them to hold off releasing their decision so it did not coincide with the White Night riots,” said our source.

As mentioned earlier, a ruling Thursday would have fallen on the 30th anniversary of the San Francisco riots, which were set off when the court handed down the most lenient decision possible (voluntary manslaughter) against Dan White for the murders of supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone. The ensuing riots in San Francisco on May 21, 1979 caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage.

[UPDATE: It looks as though it will not be tomorrow]

The California Supreme Court announces their decisions on Mondays and Thursdays and in most cases will give 24 hour advance notice of the announcement. The dead line for the court’s decision is June 3rd, 2009.

Reports that the San Francisco Police Department have dropped off barricades in the Castro District today in anticipation of the court’s decision are being reported. Two large rallies are being scheduled in Los Angeles fro 3pm and 7pm on Thursday afternoon.

Organizers have been preparing for a large rally in Fresno CA, the middle of the state for the first Saturday after the decision. Since nobody really knows how the court is going to rule, organizers are preparing for the events with either outcome in mind.

Ironically, Thursday, May 21st will be the 30th Anniversary of the White Night Riot and Friday, May 22nd is Harvey Milk’s birthday.

The court will issue their ruling on the validity of Prop 8 and the thousands and thousands of “Pre-Prop 8″ marriages. Speculation is that the CASP won’t wait too long to issue their ruling and it may come as early as April or May.

During the arguments, we we sent photos from the gathering in front of the massive screens that showed the court live. Here are some photos from San Francisco this morning.

Tomorrow the CA Supreme Court will hear the first oral arguments in the Prop 8 challenge. For more on that see our previous post.

Newer photos added to top.

Via a press release from Equality California:
The resolutions, Senate Resolution 7 and House Resolution 5, are sponsored by Equality California (EQCA) and were introduced by Senator Mark Leno and Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, respectively, both of San Francisco. In addition, a full 17 Senators and 40 Assemblymembers signed on as resolution co-authors. The Senate resolution passed by a final vote of 18-14, whereas the Assembly version passed 44-27.

“This is the first time in our state’s history that the initiative process has been used to take away a fundamental freedom from one particular group,” said EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors. “Our legislators understand this is an unequivocal change to our State’s Constitution, which is to protect and empower all people equally.”

“Both houses of the Legislature recognize that Proposition 8 undermines the fundamental principle of equal protection guaranteed by the California Constitution,” said Senator Leno. “Proposition 8’s revision to the California Constitution violated key structural checks and balances in the state’s legal system when it was approved by a slim majority of voters last November. If Proposition 8 stands, we would be setting a dangerous precedent in California that allows a majority of the people to deny equal protection under the law to a minority of Californians.”

“Our state guarantees a system of checks and balances to prevent discrimination like Prop. 8,” said Ammiano. “Prop. 8 flouts that system as it alters the very nature of our Constitution and bypasses the constitutionally-assigned duty of the Legislature to begin the process of making fundamental revisions. If Prop. 8 is allowed to stand, the rights of every minority group will be at risk and our Courts and our Legislature will be powerless to stop it.”

The Supreme Court of California is scheduled to hear arguments challenging Prop. 8 on March 5th.

Via NAACP:

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People today announced support of measures before the California legislature challenging Proposition 8, which altered the California Constitution to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry and equal protection under the law.

In a letter to legislative leaders, NAACP national board chair Julian Bond and President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous urged passage of House Resolution 5 and Senate Resolution 7 to put the legislature on record calling for invalidation of Prop. 8 as an improper and dangerous alteration of the California Constitution.

“The NAACP’s mission is to help create a society where all Americans have equal protection and opportunity under the law,” said President Jealous. “Our Mission Statement calls for the ‘equality of rights of all persons.’ Prop. 8 strips same-sex couples of a fundamental freedom, as defined by the California State Supreme Court. In so doing, it poses a serious threat to all Americans. Prop. 8 is a discriminatory, unprecedented change to the California Constitution that, if allowed to stand, would undermine the very purpose of a constitution and courts – assuring equal protection and opportunity for all and safeguarding minorities from the tyranny of the majority.”

SR 7, sponsored by Equality California (EQCA), will be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 24th and will proceed to the full Senate for a vote shortly thereafter. Its companion bill, HR 5, also sponsored by EQCA, passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Feb. 17th and is eligible for a vote before the full Assembly as early as today.

The California State Conference of the NAACP filed briefs with the California Supreme Court in the legal challenge against Prop. 8, arguing that the measure drastically alters the equal protection guarantee in California’s Constitution and that the rights of a minority cannot be eliminated by a simple majority vote. Several other civil rights organizations, faith leaders, unions and leading corporations also filed briefs urging the invalidation of Prop. 8.

“The NAACP has long opposed any proposal that would alter the federal or state constitutions for the purpose of excluding any groups or individuals from guarantees of equal protection,” said Chairman Bond. “We urge the legislature to declare that Proposition 8 did not follow the proper protective process and should be overturned as an invalid alteration that vitiated crucial constitutional safeguards and fundamental American values, threatening civil rights and all vulnerable minorities.”

The state Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on March 5th and could rule as early as June 2009.