Sec. Bowen just announced that she has assigned numbers for the boatload of initiatives that will be on the ballot in November.

So get used to these numbers.  You are going to be seeing these a lot on this website, your TV screen and your mailbox.  We need to refine the shorthand for these initiatives.  This admittedly a quick pass at it.  The framing needs to be tweaked and I am sure there will be some argument within the progressive left about these initiatives.

Prop. 1 High Speed Rail

Prop 2 Treatment of Farm Animals

Prop 3 Children’s Hospital Bond

Prop 4 Parental Notification

Prop 5 Parole and Rehab of Nonviolent Offenders

Prop 6 Tough on Crime

Prop 7 Renewable Energy

Prop 8 Take Away Marriage Equality

Prop 9 Victims Rights and Parole

Prop 10 Alternative Fuels and Renewable Energy Bonds

Prop 11 Redistricting

In the first day A.M. (After Marriage), amazingly enough not every couple in California spontaneously divorced as a result of city clerks handing out licenses with “Party 1” and “Party 2”.  There actually are still married people out there, and now they’ve been joined by thousands of LGBT couples.  And here are some of the highlights from today:

• It seems like every couple has an accompanying news article chronicling their wedding, but I think it’s a good thing for now (though I long for the day when this is unexceptional and not a news event).  Putting a human face on what can often be an abstract discussion about legal rights seems to me to be vital.  There’s a great series of videos featuring couples in the LA area at this link.

• There are of course detractors, although most of them are staying quiet for now.  One group who isn’t is the LA Archdiocese, which posted a statement denouncing “redefining marriage, which has a unique place in God’s creation.”  Maybe this is just me, but after the events of the last decade, I don’t think the Catholic church should be making any statements about sexuality whatsoever.

• True Majority and The Human Rights Campaign are but two of the organizations delivering petitions in support of marriage equality.  I expect many more.

• In Bakersfield, where Kern County clerk Ann Barnett has halted her office from officiating all weddings, an under-the-radar recall campaign has commenced.  By the way, there’s nothing new about such actions; historian and author of “Nixonland” (which you all need to read) Rick Perlstein reminds us that this is exactly what school districts in the South did after the Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka decision, shutting down entire school systems rather than integrating them.  They called it Massive Resistance.

Of course, the people who thought like that then-here’s an excellent article on one of them, Lester Maddox-are now looked upon as history’s losers, as monsters, as embarrassments, and have no defenders. Now, every conservative claims to have always been on the opposite side of the Lester Maddoxes of the day. The people who think like this now will look just as bad to history as Maddox did then. I try to mention this every time I speak to a conservative audience: that I pity them. They should take care to stay off the record when they oppose basic human rights, because it will eventually come back to bite them on the ass.

But ultimately, I’m not worried about them (though if I were a Christian, I’d worry for their immortal souls), because, twenty years down the road, most will successfully maintain they were for marriage equality all along. Moral relativism has its advantages.

• Finally, this is the video of the day (h/t AmericaBlog)

As we head into e-board (and await Brian’s updates), here’s a few things I’ve noticed around the Web-o-sphere:

• It’s a few days old, but I should mention that AB583, Loni Hancock’s Clean Money bill for California elections, was amended.  The latest is that it will be placed on the June 2010 ballot to enact a pilot program that would provide voluntary public financing in the 2014 Secretary of State’s race.  The original plan was to make the 2010 Governor’s race clean money, along with a selected Assembly and Senate race.  While shifting this to the lower-cost Secretary of State’s race increases chances of passage, it basically puts off any chance at clean money for another four years.  So it’s bittersweet, to me.

• This Alex Kozinski situation has gotten a lot of noise on political blogs – I even linked it up in quick hits.  Kozinski, the chief judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, was presumably caught with pornographic materials he stored on a public website, and now he’s offering himself up for investigation.  But the truth might be more sinister.  As Lawrence Lessig explains, Kozinski may have been the victim of a smear campaign by a lone nut who accessed material that was private but unsecure.  Worth a read.

• At the moment there are ten initiatives which have qualified for the November ballot; the latest would float $5 billion in bonds to subsidize purchases of clean-energy vehicles and research into renewables.  I’m a bit worried that such a long ballot with an what will probably be record turnout is going to bring lots and lots of low-information voters to the polls making decisions on the state’s future armed with little in the way of facts.  In other words, just another California election.

• On Tuesday, all couples in the state will be permitted to marry regardless of gender.  In anticipation, the New York Times ran an interesting article about marriage and gender relationships.  Very interesting stuff.

• Fabian Nuñez endorsed Kevin Johnson in his runoff race for Sacramento Mayor.  That race will happen in November.  No word on Johnson’s position on the allegations that refs gave the 2002 Western Conference Finals to the Lakers over the Kings, which may be a salient issue in Sac-town.

What we’ve seen over the last few years, as wingnuts stumble to codify discrimination into state constitutions, is that the laws inevitably have adverse benefits well beyond limiting marriage to between a man and a woman.  In Michigan, the state ban on same-sex marriage eliminated domestic partner benefits, for example.  Here in California, because partners will be allowed to marry starting June 17, if the constitutional amendment passes in November it’s completely unclear what would happen to those legal marriages.  But there’s another possibility that would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.

Should voters approve the measure, (USC con law expert David B.) Cruz said, offering another potential outcome, it could inadvertently affect traditional marriages. That’s because the amendment would undo only part of the court’s decision — allowing gay couples to marry — but not the rest, which says that same-sex couples cannot be recognized differently than opposite-sex couples, he said.

“If you’ve got those two rules — that you can’t let them marry, but you can’t give different options to gay and straight couples — then one possible outcome, if the amendment were to pass, is that no one could get married in California,” Cruz said.

Some experts found that scenario highly unlikely, saying such a reading of the decision would be much too technical — and cause too much chaos.

I don’t find that to be technical – in fact you would have to give an intellectually dishonest reading of the law NOT to come to that conclusion.

One county is taking this “no more marriages” thing quite literally – and it’s shameful.

Kern County Clerk Ann Barnett has announced that her office will stop performing all weddings a few days before June 17, the date that same-sex couples can legally apply for marriage licenses.

Barnett’s staff processes marriage licenses for hundreds of Kern County residents each year and it will continue to do, for both straight and gay couples, beginning June 17 as required by law, she said in a written statement. But as of June 13, the staff will no longer officiate at civil ceremonies for an extra $30 fee.

Officials cited financial reasons for the decision. But internal memos between a high-ranking official in Barnett’s office and a conservative Christian legal defense fund, published in the Bakersfield Californian this week, indicate that Barnett may have acted on principle rather than for financial reasons.

As long as Barnett is officiating no marriages instead of only straight ones, it’s not discriminatory.  And the same goes for the state, according to the most honest reading of the relevant statutes.

The idiots who think they’re defending marriage by trying to narrow its definition to one man and one woman are actually trying to do nothing but eliminate it.

With 7% reporting:

98 N Eminent Domain. Limits on Government Authority. 357,626 43.3% 467,116 56.7%

99 Y Eminent Domain. Limits on Government Acquisition. 536,649 65.5% 282,737 34.5%

It’s a bigger problem for 98 than just winning.  Because the props are related, 98 has to do better than 99 to become law.  I can’t see how that could possibly happen, even though these are early numbers.

UPDATE: CBS2 in LA has called a victory for Prop. 99.  Good news.

UPDATE: And 98 is going to lose outright, and lose big.  Fantastic.  Right now some idiot Prop. 98 supporter is on my teevee talking about how they’ll “keep fighting.”  We’re going to fight until nobody has rent control!!!!

We all knew this was inevitable, but now it’s official: the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage will appear on the November ballot.

An initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure’s sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.

The measure, known as the California Marriage Protection Act, would amend the state constitution to “provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. It is similar to gay marriage bans that have been adopted in 26 other states.

OK, fine.  Bring it on.  We’re going to win this thing.  And the benefit will rebound on those Democrats who believe in equality and justice.

Yesterday’s historic ruling defending marriage from double standards and discrimination, has created wide reaction across the political spectrum, most of it predictable.  One reaction was fairly unpredictable, from Libertarian Presidential candidate (and former Republican) Bob Barr:

“Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress).  The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which ournation was founded.

“Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state.  The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states’ powers should work.”

I think Barr is being a little disingenuous about the intent of DOMA, but it’s an interesting perspective nonetheless.

On the side of gay rights advocates, there is much celebration, and a determination to forge ahead for a tough fight in the fall.  Ellen DeGeneres announced her intention to get married, provoking a long standing ovation from her audience.  

On the side of the wingnuts and homophobes, heads exploded.  A lot of them focused on how “unelected judges” went over the heads of the will of the people.  First of all, the elected legislature, elected more recently than the 2000 marriage initiative, have passed this legislation twice, and frankly that’s how democracy works.  Second of all, Supreme Court judges in California are, you know, elected:

But, in making their rush to judgment about the CA decision, both Blunt and Feeney have the basic facts wrong about how California’s judicial system works. SmartVoter.org, a resource of the League of Women’s Voters, makes clear that California’s Supreme Court justices are “confirmed by the public at the next general election” after being appointed and “justices also come before voters at the end of their 12-year terms.”

In fact, each of the seven justices involved in yesterday’s decision were approved by California voters by overwhelming margins:

– Justice Joyce L. Kennard confirmed in 2006 with 74.5% of the vote.

– Justice Carol A. Corrigan confirmed in 2006 with 74.4% of the vote.

– Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar confirmed in 2002 with 74.1% of the vote.

– Justice Carlos R. Moreno confirmed in 2002 with 72.6% of the vote.

– Justice Marvin R. Baxter confirmed in 2002 with 71.5% of the vote.

– Justice Ronald M. George confirmed in 1998 with 75.5% of the vote.

– Justice Ming William Chin confirmed in 1998 with 69.3% of the vote.

And 6 of the 7 were appointed by Republican governors.

As for the initiative fight, Peter Hecht has a scene-setter today.

California voters eight years ago overwhelmingly approved a law against gay marriage, but as they prepare to go to the polls again in the wake of Thursday’s California Supreme Court decision, the outcome is less certain.

Unlike 2000, when 61 percent voted to put a gay marriage ban in state law, the “California Marriage Protection Act” would lock the ban in the constitution, negating the court’s action. The measure is expected to qualify for the Nov. 4 ballot.

Pollsters say voters’ views on gay marriage are more complex than the last time they considered the question, as surveys show rising acceptance in California for same-sex unions.

“The vote itself on the constitutional amendment will be wide open,” said Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo. “It’s all age-related. One generation is replacing another. And the generation that is coming in now is much more supportive of gay marriage than the one that was here eight years ago.”

In a 2006 state Field Poll, voters opposed gay marriage 51 percent to 43 percent. But support was much stronger among newer voters.

Kevin Drum has crunched the numbers based on historical data between 2000 and now, and thinks it’ll be very close, within 4 points.  This is going to be a major battle in the fall.  And I have to say, one that can skyrocket turnout on the DEMOCRATIC side.  As a civil rights issue that will energize younger voters to turn out in solidarity and support, I think you could see a perfect storm that could help us downticket.  It’s going to take a major effort.