The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. This was not exactly unexpected. The following are a few reactions that I received in my mailbox from advocacy groups about the ruling:

Center Advocacy Project Issues PAC

Today is a dark day for anyone who believes in American freedom or justice.

Today each and every Californian — LGBT and non-LGBT — awoke to a profoundly shocking ruling from the California State Supreme Court. Today the Supreme Court in this great state told the 70,000+ California children raised in loving same-sex households that their families are not equal and their parents will not be allowed to marry in the state of California. They ruled that it is permissible for “the people” to vote to take away the rights of others, for neighbors to strip their neighbors of their right to marry.

The Court has permitted a slim 4% of voters to eviscerate the equality provision of our state constitution and to deprive an entire class of Californians of the fundamental freedom to marry.

While we all breathed a collective sigh of relief that the Court did not force the divorce of 18,000 married Californians and cause deep disruption to those families; our hearts break for the tens of thousands of others who today learned that in California they have lost their fundamental right to equal treatment under the law.

Many ask — why is California different than Iowa or Vermont or Maine? In those states the legislature or the State Supreme court ruled for equality, but so did California? Yes, the California legislature TWICE passed a marriage equality bill and the California Supreme Court already ruled that to deny the right to marry was unconstitutional.

But in California there was yet another twist. In California a group devised a strategy to circumvent the legislature and dis-empower the courts. They spent millions to call for a “vote of the people” to strip away fundamental rights already recognized by the courts and force a vote by our neighbors on our basic equality! Can you imagine the outraged screaming if any other group faced such a vote, say perhaps a vote on whether Baptists should be stripped of the right to marry? Unconscionable and unthinkable. But it happened in California and the California Supreme Court today held that such a vote is constitutional.

But today’s ruling will not be the end of this story nor this journey for justice.

Public opinion continues to move in the direction of fairness and equality, in California and all over the nation. Not only have vital lessons for all of America been learned from this civil rights loss, but tens of thousands have responded with new energy, new coalitions, new leadership joining renewed commitment from those who have fought so hard for so long.

From Facebook and Twitter, to the news waves and wires, all mediums have been full of different images and a different story than ever before: images of thousands of loving, committed couples and families who want only the freedom to be equal… and to marry. Those images and stories are told anew every day and every day another Californian and another American joins us in this struggle. A newly formed, newly energized national coalition movement for equality will see this battle through to a victory in California.

Every day it becomes clearer and clearer to all Americans that this struggle is not about denying anyone or any religion the right to marry (or not marry) whomever they wish in their own churches and temples.

It is instead a struggle for the simple right to legally and civilly marry the ones we have spent a lifetime loving, protecting, and providing for; a struggle to respect all couples and all families. A struggle to preserve that uniquely American principle: equal treatment under the law.

A struggle we will win.

Equality California

Our worst fears have come to pass. The California Supreme Court just ruled that a slim majority of voters could eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. This unjust decision flies in the face of our constitution’s promise of equal protection.

Although we are relieved that the Court did not forcibly divorce the estimated 18,000 couples who married before Prop 8 passed, our community and our allies will not allow this on-going discrimination to stand. We will overturn Prop 8, but only with your support.

Qualifying an initiative and ensuring a victory will require us to raise more money than we’ve ever raised (and earlier), volunteer more hours than we’ve ever worked, and have more face-to-face conversations with people in areas where people voted yes on 8.

EQCA is ready; we’ve already hit the ground running. We have a plan to reach 300,000 Californians in the next 100 days. Are you willing to do what it takes to win?

Thanks to your support, we now have eight new staff on the ground in Sacramento, the Central Valley, Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego in addition to our staff in Los Angeles and San Francisco. These organizers are working in the field with other grassroots groups to talk directly to voters at their doors and at festivals, events, and shopping centers in their communities. Meet the Team Win organizers>

While eight organizers is a strong start, it is honestly a drop in the bucket in a state the size of California. To reach our targets and build a winning effort, we must have a minimum of 25 field staff on the ground across the state as soon as possible. To pay for this work, we need to raise a minimum of $500,000 in the next 90 days. If we can’t do that, we will surely not be able to fund a massive campaign to put an initiative on the ballot and win.

We will only get there with your help. Every dollar you donate in response to this email will support grassroots organizing in areas where people voted yes on 8.

The No on 8 campaign was more than ten million dollars behind in fundraising until the last few weeks. To ensure a majority of Californians will stand with us, we need your investment from day one.

We may have lost in court today, but together we will right this wrong and win marriage back. The fight will take everything we have, but with your help, we know we will be victorious.

American Civil Liberties Union

Today, personal freedom took a big hit in California. In a 6-to-1 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled against us in our case to overturn Proposition 8.

Marriages of same-sex couples will continue to be banned in California.

This is deeply disappointing, especially in light of the recent Iowa Supreme Court ruling saying that it is unconstitutional to keep gay couples from marrying — and the passage of laws opening marriage to everyone by the Vermont and Maine legislatures. Public support for marriage for same-sex couples is gaining ground, but California is being left behind.

Matt Coles, the director of the ACLU’s LGBT project, recorded a personal message about California’s decision, what it means for people’s lives and its impact on the freedoms of all Americans.

This decision legitimizes discrimination and allows the government to intrude on our most intimate commitments. You can be sure the ACLU will continue to work for fairness for gay couples and families.

But this case goes beyond the LGBT community. It is also about the government imposing one group’s idea of morality on everyone else. And when that happens, you can be sure the ACLU will be there.

Listen to what Matt has to say about the Prop 8 decision and the important work the ACLU is doing to protect the personal freedoms of all Americans.

Those opposed to same-sex marriage are on the wrong end of history. And, with your help, the ACLU will wage and win this battle for equality no matter how long it takes.

Of course, everyone is seeking donations, but political action does require money after all.

Personally, I think that the California Supreme Court was probably right from a strictly procedural standpoint. The real culprit here is the people of California. The legal processes, which allows a slim majority of citizens to insert discrimination directly into the Constitution, rather than the court’s decision, seems to me to be what is fundamentally flawed here.