The California wedding industry is about to see a major influx of dollars.  Starting June 17, “Party A” and “Party B” will fill out the new forms from the state Office of Vital Records.  This is of course leads to another party, a wedding reception.  Companies are already starting to gear up their advertising, hoping to get a healthy share of all of that cash.  Macy’s put a huge ad in the LAT.  WashBlade has the image:

The Los Angeles Times ran a Macy’s ad today showing two mingling wedding rings with the following message: “First comes love. Then comes marriage. And now it’s a milestone every couple in California can celebrate.”

I imagine the wingnuts are firing up their boycott machine.

Thanks to the new governor in New York, we are likely to see a decent amount of wedding tourism.  NYT:

Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.

In a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”

The directive was issued prior to the court ruling and it is interesting that it took so long for this to be made public.  Nevertheless, this does mean that many a gay New Yorker will make a trip to California to fill out their Party A and Party B forms and then return home to get the 1,300 rights that the Republican controlled NY State Senate refuses to give them.  Sure they could drive over to Massachusetts, but I have to say there are many prettier places to get married out here than in MA.  No offense to the Bay Staters.

Lest you think there was a chance that the initiative to take away my and my fellow GLBTers right to get married here in California wouldn’t have enough valid signatures, the signatures are being approved at a higher rate than normal and looks like it will easily make it on the ballot.

The verification data on the initiaitve that would ban gay marriage is instructive. It shows that the initiative turned in more than 1.1 million signatures for random sampling. So far the verification rate is very good — over 83 percent on more than 20,000 signatures that have been checked. If that rate holds, the measure should qualify easily for the November ballot. (In the signature biz, 70 percent).

Meanwhile, Arnold Schwarzenegger had an interesting exchange with a gay man who proudly told the governor he had already made an appointment to marry his partner of 22 years at SF City Hall.  He asked Arnold about his position on the initiative.  It is along the same lines as what he has been saying and illustrates how complicated and twisted his rhetoric has been. (flip it)

Well, first of all, I respect the court’s opinion, which I think was very important, to not just look at it from a point, do I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman or not, but that it looks at the constitutionality of the whole issue. And constitutionally they said it was not right to tell people you can’t do that. Everyone should be treated equally. I think this is a very good way of approaching it, and it’s the fairest way of approaching it, and that’s why I said I respect their opinion. And, you know, I’m wishing everyone good luck with their marriages, and I hope that California’s economy is booming because everyone is going to come here and get married. (Applause) I think all of this is great.

Parsing here, we see that Arnold does not support marriage equality personally, but respects a court ruling that was about the constitutionality of barring same sex marriages.  Though he is anti-gay marriage, he is still wishing those getting married good luck.  It is strange and makes you wonder what he is really saying behind closed doors.  The line about increasing the economy has already made some waves.  Indeed this should been a boon, even if on scale it is small, but there will be more tourist dollars spend here and it will encourage more gay couples to move or stay here in California.

And I think — and I’m against changing the Constitution. I’m against the ballot initiative that some are trying to put on the ballot. (Applause) Because it’s unnecessary. I think that we have rules in place and after the decision was made to then change the rules because you’re not happy with the outcome, I don’t believe that’s the right way to go. So I think that — and may I remind you, I have said in the past — you know, I see a marriage between a man and a woman. But that’s my opinion. I don’t want to force that opinion on anyone. So I respect that opinion, and I think we should live with that and everyone should move forward in the right way.

Yeah, I know, he isn’t being that clear here.  However, the general message is don’t be a sore loser.  I doubt that will convince many people, but the language about moving forward is productive.

Marriage equality came up as an issue on the campaign trail today.  Instead of being in the Senate to vote for increased benefits for our veterans John McCain was on Ellen’s couch telling her that he doesn’t think she should get married.  Once again he is flip-flopping on the issue.  HuffPo has a good piece up with a bunch of good links giving the background on McCain twisting himself in even more knots than Schwarzenegger.  In it is this video from Brave New Films.

Ellen will be a wonderful person to really humanize this issue.  She has a huge reach through her show and makes waves any time she talks about her relationship with Portia.  Their wedding this summer will be a great opportunity to message about the need to protect their right to be married.  I think Ellen recognizes this and we will hear more from her about her private life.

(full disclosure: I work for Courage)

Vice President Al Gore recorded a video and wrote an email to Courage Campaign members about the importance of investing in education even during a time of economic crisis.

In it Al Gore asks for people to respond back to him directly on Current.com with either a video response or text.  They have a pretty nifty tool that will detect a webcam on your computer and let you respond right there, just scroll down to the bottom.

On Monday, I went to the capitol and filmed 18 different Assemblymembers responding to Al Gore.  Dave has been cutting them into individual videos and uploading them.  Below the fold is the rest of the email from Gore.  I had hoped to be able to embed those videos from the Assemblymembers here, but the code from Current is not playing nicely, so you will have to click the link to see.

Assemblyman Anthony Portantino AD-44, Assemblywoman Betty Karnette AD-54, Assemblyman Dave Jones, AD-09, Assemblyman Kevin DeLeon AD-45, Assemblyman Ed Hernandez AD-57, Assemblyman Hector De La Torre AD-50, Assemblyman John Laird AD-27, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine AD-40, Assemblyman Lori Saldana AD-76, Assemblyman Sandré Swanson AD-16 and there are a few more coming including Speaker Karen Bass.

Dear Julia,

I don’t write emails like this often.

But, with Californians facing a massive budget crisis and potentially devastating cuts to education, I feel compelled to speak out. As members of the Courage Campaign community, I hope you will speak out as well.

I recorded this one-minute video for the Courage Campaign on Current.com. Please watch it and let me know what you think by recording a short video or written response of your own.

Jann Wenner, the publisher of Rolling Stone magazine, asked me an interesting question in an interview a few months ago:

“How do we engineer the sweeping social and political and industrial change that we need in a short period of time, from top to bottom?”

My answer is that we must create a shift in consciousness — and, education is the catalyst for this shift.

That’s why I recorded this video for the Courage Campaign. Please watch it on Current.com and, if you feel so inspired, respond with a webcam video or text response of your own.

Education is not a partisan issue. It is a crucial building block toward creating a more informed democracy. We can solve the climate crisis, and every other problem facing our nation, if we begin by transforming America’s priorities on education.

As parents, teachers and students speak out about these proposed cuts, they need your support, now more than ever. Please forward this message to your friends who care about the future of California and our country as much as you do.

I hope you will take a moment today to record a short webcam video or write a response to my video. Your voice, and the voices of your friends, can change the conversation in California.

Thank you,

Al Gore

Lots of thanks to Steve Maviglio for help getting the legislators to come give their responses to Gore.

Dave alluded to the conservatives’ reaction to the ruling and I want to take some time to unpack their arguments here.  The Flash Report has a “special report” from Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute.  She writes:

Four elitist, activist judges decided that they would redefine marriage by overturning the voter-approved Proposition 22. Out of thin air, the court created a “fundamental right” to gay marriage, equal with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The main issue in this case is not whether marriage should be redefined – marriage is an institution that by its very nature cannot be redefined, regardless of political action. No, the main issue here is whether Californians will allow a handful of justices to impose their radical social agenda on citizens.

We often hear about judicial activism but this case will be recorded as the very definition of the term.  These activist judges demonstrated their need for a refresher course in the fundamentals of government and separation of powers.

Let’s take this point by point now, shall we…

As a friend of mine and a real leader in the fight for GLBT equality, Candace Gingrich likes to say when listing things:

A of all, what makes the judges who ruled on this case elitist?  I am pretty damn sure they would never use this descriptor had the court ruled in their favor.  It is simply a way to discount the opinion of the majority of the court.

B of all, Prop. 22 was statutory.  The judges in this case were asked to consider if that law squared with the California Constitution’s equality language.  The opinion of the public simply does not matter.  As Glen Greenwald writes:

(flip-it…the list goes to H of all)

Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges “overriding” the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their “marriage” laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed “it is up to the state Supreme Court” to decide the issue.

C of all, marriage has always been a shifting institution, evolving with society.  No longer do we treat women as property, or let men rape their wives.  This is from a NYT op-ed back in 2005 called “The Heterosexual Revolution”:

Marriage has been in a constant state of evolution since the dawn of the Stone Age. In the process it has become more flexible, but also more optional. Many people may not like the direction these changes have taken in recent years. But it is simply magical thinking to believe that by banning gay and lesbian marriage, we will turn back the clock.

D of all, the court did not create a “fundamental right” to marriage.  They simply stated that whatever straights get to do, so do gays.  If the state legislature wants to switch everyone over to civil unions they are free to do so.  The key here that the state treats both equally.

E of all, the main issue in this case is whether the California constitution requires all individuals to be treated equally with regards to marriage.

F of all, it does look like the voters will have their say.  The initiative that has been submitted and is awaiting approval of the signatures by the Secretary of State would change the California constitution and if that happened, the only way it could be reversed is by changing it again.

G of all, separation of powers worked exactly the way it should with regards to this case.  The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional or not.  That is their job.  The public passed a law, and the court gets to rule.  Now the governor has to enforce it.  That is the way our government works.  It is England that needs a refresher course in the fundamentals of the American system of government.

H of all, BRING. IT. ON!  I  cannot wait for this fight.  I will be fighting to protect my rights.  You are trying to take away my rights.  My generation is slowly but surely replacing yours.  We will prevail.  

And guess what?  It will have absolutely no impact on your life.  Your church can do what ever the heck it wants.  But I have a dream of someday calling a woman my wife and that I am going to fight like hell to protect it.

The state of California owns land and structures nearly twice the size of Los Angeles County.   Most of that we need, but it turns out that we have a significant amount of surplus property that can be sold off.  These are parcels like land CalTrans purchased for roads that were never built.   Four years ago the Schwarzenegger administration estimated that we could bring in $5 billion from selling the surplus land.

This is something both Democrats and Republicans are interested in exploring.  CCTimes

Sen. Dean Florez, a Fresno-area Democrat who heads the Senate government committee, said he would rather “sell our surplus property, before we sell or lease the lottery.”

“We are going to be looking at every single asset and asking the question of whether there is any longer a use for these properties,” said Florez.

Republican Sen. Jeff Denham, of Merced, said that “we want to see what can be sold to deal with this year’s budget crisis,” as well as those of any future years.

There is absolutely no way that the state can or even should try and sell off all of these properties quick enough to raise billions of dollars to help with this year’s budget deficit.  Rushing would lead to mistakes, ones that could be costly if the state sells off property it turns out we need.  Plus, rushing for quick sales will reduce the revenue back into the state.

It is important to point out that this is absolutely an attack by Republicans on governmental bureaucracy.

But lawmakers said they are ready to get tough with departments, slashing even more than proposed amounts, then letting officials fill in the revenue gap with land-sale proceeds. Currently, proceeds must go to pay off deficit bonds.

Legislators said that, in essence, they want to force departments to justify retaining land.

However, there may be a there there.  Departments right now do not have any incentive to put resources into selling the land owned by them.  They do the work to sell the land and then never see the money.  That appears to be the main cause for the holding of so many parcels that they do not need.

If we are slashing services and our education budget, we do need to examine closely proposals like this one.  There is no way we will get close to $5 billion this year, nor do we have a good estimate if that number is a real one, given the fluctuations in the real estate market.  Basically, we need more information before the legislators proceed.  However, of all of the paths to increasing revenue to the state, this seems like a relatively uncontroversial one that could bear some fruit.

The budget fight has touched just about every single person with an interest in the fiscal policy of the state and that includes strippers, porn stars and others in the adult entertainment industry.  The Democrats are trying to find ways to raise revenue and avoid having to cut even deeper than they already have into essential programs and education funding.  That means “sin taxes” and other sales taxes and fees. LAT:

As state leaders hunt for politically palatable solutions to the swelling budget shortfall, some Democrats are proposing unorthodox ways to generate cash.

Strip clubs, six-packs, grocery bags and iTunes downloads are all in their sights as alternatives to broad income or sales tax hikes. So are gas guzzlers and yachts — and a tax loophole for criminals.

Despite tough odds of overcoming an oath signed by their Republican colleagues to stop any tax hikes, Democratic lawmakers seem confident that their ideas will carry the day. They predict the public won’t stand for painful cuts to schools and healthcare to close a shortfall the governor now pegs as high as $20 billion, and say anti-tax forces will ultimately have to accept that more revenue is needed to bring the state into the black.

This is nothing new.  We are roughly in the same place we were a few months ago, only the deficit is even larger. Flip it.

The Democrats want to find legal (not illegal) ways to close the budget deficit.  The Yacht Party has their arms linked red rover style, daring the Dems to break through.  Governor Schwarzenegger is more of a mystery, though he does have to show his cards next week, with the announcement of the May revise, the updated version of his budget proposal.  

Next Tuesday, Karen Bass will be sworn in as the new Speaker of the Assembly.  Insert your favorite sports metaphor here about what she is stepping into on her first week on the job….

It is our job to hammer the Republicans as much as possible for their ridiculous tax policy positions.  It’s not as if the yacht tax loophole is the only common sense loophole to close.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) has expressed bewilderment that GOP lawmakers won’t even talk about eliminating the mortgage deduction for vacation homes valued at more than $1 million — a move Republicans say would discourage the wealthy from buying property in California.

Public opinion is a real wild-card that will help swing this debate and early polling is giving the Democrats confidence in how they are proceeding thus far.  While the legislators are mostly protected by safe seats, the public’s opinion on how to solve the budget will play an important role.  The media spotlight is going to be pretty glaring as Sacramento heads towards triple digit temperatures inside and outside of the capitol.  That combined with upset constituents is what the Democrats are counting on to break the Republican’s chain.

It’s going to be one hot, controversial summer and not just because there are strippers and porn stars roaming the halls of the capitol.