This is cross-posted from the California Majority Report. It was written by Richard Stapler, the press secretary for Speaker of the Assembly.
Today, the California State Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality, allowing (in 30 days time) same sex couples to wed.
It's a joyous occassion for my partner (soon to be my husband!) and myself -- and the millions of LGBT Californians who will be shortly be afforded all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
I heard the news on the Assembly floor this morning from a newspaper reporter -- and fought back tears of joy. I read with glee the opening statement of the court's action to the Speaker of the Assembly and several Members, halting with the overwhelming emotion I felt. Text messages and calls to my partner, friends and family ensued.
But there is a sobering reality to all of this. We've won this battle, but the war for our equal rights stretches on until November.
(While we're celebrating equal marriage rights for all Californians, why not listen to one of California's progressive Congressional candidates hold court on the issues? - promoted by Dante Atkins (hekebolos))
Full disclosure: I serve as a the (volunteer) Netroots Coordinator for the Mary Pallant campaign
If we learned nothing else from Travis Childers' incredible victory in the R+10 MS-01, it is that all but the verry most conservative Republican House seats are in play and winnable this election cycle. Democrats who may not have had a legitimate shot in other election years have a decent shot of taking over otherwise impossible districts this year.
What that also means is that many Democrats in swing districts that are trending blue may actually be favored to win this year--even if they're not technically on the front radars of organizations like Blue Majority or the DCCC's Red to Blue list. Of course, demographics aren't everything: the candidates themselves have to be capable, determined and charismatic.
Over the flip, I'll be posting some legislator's remarks on the marriage decision. I'll only get a few now, so any editors should feel free to add some or throw them in the comments.
Senator Barack Obama:
"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."
On the issue of constitutional amendments, Senator Obama has been on record for some time: He opposes all divisive and discriminatory constitutional amendments, state or federal. That includes the proposed amendments in California and Florida.
in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.
The Court goes on to say: "
Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court.
Hmmm, "appropriate state official"? Who might that be? Oh yeah, Mark Leno!
And a nice little touch concludes the directive: "Further, as the prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs." Ha!! Take that bigots!
Justices Baxtar, Corrigan, and Chin dissented. All of them, however, wrote that they believe that same sex marriages should be recognized. However, they do not believe that the Constitution mandates such recognition.
(This is a little technique called "using your opponent's words against them," not an signal that I think "girly-man" is some kind of devastating or even viable slur, for the record)
Key stakeholders are weighing in on the Governor's revised budget. The Education Coalition notes that public education is still shortchanged, primarily through suspending COLA adjustments. Health Access California sees major cuts to health care, through denying certain Medi-Cal benefits to adults, eliminating coverage for some low-income working parents, and forcing others through loads of paperwork in the hopes that they'll trip up and forget to check a box so they can be purged from the rolls. Shane Goldmacher has a pretty comprehensive list of several other reactions.
But my favorite take - probably because it most mirrors my own - is from Dan Weintraub, whose main point is basically what a coward this Governor is.
The governor's revised budget would give more to schools and less to health and welfare than he proposed in January, but the real story is his proposal to use lottery revenues to bridge the stubborn gap between spending and tax collections. Schwarzenegger's press staff is furiously trying to portray the lottery deal as something other than borrowing, but borrowing it is. The state would change the game's rules in ways designed to attract more business, then lean on private investors for $15 billion in up-front payments. That advance on lottery revenues would be repaid over 30 years from the new proceeds generated by the changes. But the up-front money runs out after three years, and guess what happens then: Yup: the budget deficit reappears, unless there's an economic miracle between now and then. Ironically, if there were an economic surge and the governor's revenue-averaging proposal were in place, the state couldn't spend the new money and would still be left with a shortfall to cover. That persistent shortfall, at least according to the governor's numbers, is in the range of about $5 billion to $6 billion a year. Fixing that would be the next governor's problem.
Schwarzenegger started off saying he was going to "blow up the boxes" in Sacramento. He barely tried. He said he would be the "Collectinator" and end the state's donor status with respect to the federal government. Didn't happen. This year he said the time had come for budget reform. He offered the same answer as he has in previous years. He's even trying to shake down the state into accepting his borrow-and-spend proposal with the lottery, by raising the spectre of a regressive across-the-board sales tax if the voters knock it down in November.
He's a coward. He doesn't want to be responsible for fixing the budget permanently, so he wants to pass off the problem to his successor. He doesn't want his legacy besmirched, so he pulled back on the proposal to close parks or suspend Prop. 98. He just wants to tour the world and appear on magazine covers, without having to do any of that nasty business of governing. Nobody could be worse for this state at this time of crisis.
I hate when history repeats itself. This year's May Revise budget proposal has some ugly similarities with last year's, particularly when it comes to public transportation cuts. In May 2007 Arnold proposed a $1.3 billion cut to mass transit. Ultimately $700 million was slashed, bringing to a halt transit projects around the state designed to help commuters get out of their cars and avoid the crippling impact of soaring gas prices.
Now, Arnold is proposing to raid public transportation funds again, to avoid tax increases. John Laird's budget overview makes clear that Arnold intends to cut over $400 million from state assistance to local public transit. This is an act of madness, as Californians are crying out for alternatives to the car. Ridership on local transit systems is soaring, but these systems are also being squeezed financially by rising fuel costs - especially diesel costs (which here in Monterey are just under $5 per gallon).
These proposed cuts are going to make it difficult for local systems to maintain their current levels of service, and will certainly make it hard for them to expand service to meet rising demand. It's hard to escape the conclusion that Arnold wants to drive commuters back into their cars.
Underneath the green veneer, Arnold is still the same conservative Republican who seeks to destroy the environment. What explains Arnold's desire to destroy public transportation? It's two interrelated factors. The first is that Arnold simply is not an environmentalist. He is fixated on the automobile as a form of transportation. He thinks more freeways are the solution, not more public transportation. The screaming demand of millions of Californians for public transit don't register with him.
The second is that Arnold is in the pockets of Big Oil. They have donated well over a million dollars to his various funds since November 2006, even though he isn't eligible for re-election in 2010. As their gouging of Californians continues, the oil companies know that a backlash is coming. They want to prevent that at all costs, want to ensure that they hold the line in California lest they set a trend for the rest of the nation.
If Arnold destroys California's public transit systems, Californians will not have any alternative but to pay the exorbitant costs at the pump. The middle class will sink further into financial ruin.
Arnold's public transportation cuts are a catastrophic disaster for the state of California. Not only will they make global warming worse, not only will they make our environment more polluted, more prone to fire, and mired deeper in drought, but his cuts will ruin family budgets, eventually causing lost jobs and further destroying the state's middle class.
Gas was at $3.50 when I wrote that. We're now at $4 and climbing fast. Arnold's attack on public transportation is nothing short of an attack on the California economy and on the wallets of every Californian. It is the height of hypocrisy to claim to protect those wallets by not raising taxes and to then force voters to shell out more money in gas purchases. Higher taxes would help lower the cost of transportation for Californians, growing the economy and leaving more green in family budgets at the end of the month.
Arnold's budget is flawed in many respects. This seems one of the most obvious - and one of the easiest targets for a counterattack.
(I want to make sure I re-emphasize the first sentence. I do not know the outcome. I can only look to the judgment and hope that what I have here is complete and utter balderdash. As shayera said at dKos today, this is one of those times that I hope I totally screwed up. So, I look to tomorrow optimistically, with complete awareness of the fact that either way we have a long, hard fight in front of us. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
UPDATE: I've decided to re-title this to reinforce the flimsiness of this stuff. I've gotten word that the clerk was planning on changing roles for some time. So, I'm going wait and see. Only 3 hours left anyway.
I don't traditionally ply in loosely sourced rumors, but here I go. Some troubling news has emerged from the California Supreme Court regarding In re Marriage Cases due to be announced tomorrow. First, Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar's only openly gay law clerk abruptly resigned today. I'm still looking to get additional details on this, but I am told that there was no indication of the resignation prior to today. If you have any further details on this, shoot me an email.
Next, from another source intimately familiar with the case and the Court, I'm hearing that the Court is prepared to take a step that stands in stark contrast to their bold and courageous position in Perez v. Sharp. Specifically, it looks like we might get a decision that dramatically rules against granting individuals the freedom to marry whomever they choose. The total voting correctly could be limited to one justice (if even that) by dissenting from a decision that would be looked back upon as a cop-out at best.
Leadership takes courage. Some have it. Others do not.
To learn that Blackwater's no-bid security contract for Iraq was renewed even as a grand jury investigates the company and the IRS considers its own review of the company's books, raises serious concerns that merit Senate hearings. How was this decision made? What was the process that concluded there were no alternatives? What was the extent of Blackwater's lobbying effort?, said Senator Kerry. "Five years into this war, there's been too much abuse of the contracting process in Iraq and too little oversight, and nowhere do the questions loom larger than in Blackwater's role and the Administration's apparent imperviousness to skepticism where this corporation is concerned.
Coincidentally, this news comes on the same day that news broke that Blackwater vehicle prototypes might be on the Defense Department's shopping list. This is two more fronts in the battle over Blackwater's legitimacy. On the one hand, Blackwater continues to seek out new niches to keep itself afloat after we finally leave Iraq, and on the other hand, Democratic leadership continues to step to block Blackwater. Kerry's hearings will likely take place in the Middle East Subcommittee in the Foreign Relations Committee. Also serving there is Senator Barbara Boxer. Now Senator Boxer has earned the benefit of the doubt over her years in the Senate, but this is a huge issue that goes well beyond this aspect of Blackwater or the State Department. This is a statement about how we as a nation are going to treat organizations like Blackwater.
I have a lot of faith in Barbara Boxer to do the right thing, but that doesn't mean it isn't vital that we watch and make sure she helps drive the point home here. There's simply never any excuse for Blackwater to be paid with our tax dollars. Until we can lay down a federal level smackdown (Rep. Schakowsky's Stop Outsourcing Security Act is another great opportunity) on this sort of thing, it's just gonna be more rounds of whack-a-mole around the country. It's good to see more leadership in DC on this issue, but now we've gotta get the follow-through.
I swear, I did not make this up. Josh Richman, who writes for some of the Bay Area newspapers, has this sweet little post at his political blog:
A public relations consultant for Frauscher, a European yacht manufacturer, says Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will attend the unveiling of the world's first hybrid yacht engine this Friday morning, May 16, at San Francisco's St. Francis Yacht Club...
It's just too easy, I can't do it. So, feel free to insert your own funny comment here.
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.
I don't like to use exclamations in my titles, but I felt this deserved one. A friend of mine emailed me a PDF foretelling a ruling in In Re Marriage Cases from the Supreme Court's website. So, tomorrow is the judgment day, the day we will learn if, in California, we all really do have equal rights to marry the one we love.
The decision is scheduled to come out at 10am. The Supreme Court has all sorts of interesting documents, audio, and other stuff related to the case at a special "High Profile Cases" page.
I'm super-duper proud to announce that Calitics will be the official state blog for California at the DNC Convention in Denver this August! We'll be covering all of the action from the floor of the convention, actually seated within the California delegation. We actually only have one press pass to share amongst the Calitics Crew that will be attending, but we'll work to maximize the efficacy of said press pass. (Also, shout out to DNC folks. California has 10% of the delegates, why only slightly greater than 1% of the state blogger passes?)
We'll be giving out some more details as we get closer to the convention (the end of August). These things are always more about the presentation than any actual stuff that happens there. While this year isn't all that likely to be different, there does exist a remote possibility of some drama. Either way, it should be an interesting experience for those of us that will be attending.
Pretty fancy video, huh? Howard Dean went all out for our (state or territory).
Yes, it's a lot of money. But if just 1,000 readers here gave five dollars that would help me reach my personal goal of raising $5,000 for my husbands State Senate campaign. He's running because of me, I have to support the deadbeat.
Yes, that's humor. He's a good guy and we are working on many other means to raise money. The official campaign stationary is on the way, unfortunately the wrong paper was delivered, we are insisting on recycled paper and are using a local union printer. All important choices on our part.
So, what can I share about Gary? Well, he got the Democracy for America endorsement last week and that meant the world to both of us. I will include his questionnaire behind the cut so you can learn more about what he believes.
The AP has gotten a hold of the governor's May Revise speech and therefore the major budget proposals that are to be unveiled tomorrow. The key elements are described below and over the flip I provide some analysis of each proposal.
Arnold will float bonds using the state lottery as security. $15 billion over 3 years will be raised but $10 billion goes into "rainy day fund"
If that fails, 1% sales tax hike to last no more than 3 years
Prop 98 suspension abandoned; instead COLA will not be paid
State parks closures abandoned; instead fees to rise $1 to $2
$6 billion still left to cut or balance out somehow."
Overall thoughts: Here we go again. Arnold Schwarzenegger came to office in the recall of Gray Davis in 2003 promising to solve our state's budget problems once and for all. Instead he immediately blew a $6 billion hole in the budget with the Vehicle License Fee cut and then borrowed to close the rest of the gap - costing the state around $3 billion in annual debt service.
Now that Arnold's solution has predictably failed, he is predictably offering more of the same. Borrowing against the lottery is a problematic concept for many reasons, the main one being it avoids the core issues of our budget. It's yet another one-time fix that does nothing to solve the structural revenue shortfall that has plagued our state for 30 years.
It is significant that Arnold seems to be backing away from his most significant cuts - especially the K-12 cuts. Obviously the details released tomorrow will be key, and we should fully expect higher ed to take another crippling blow. But this does indicate that the activism many of us have launched against the primary schools cuts has had an impact.
And of course, there's still $6 billion left over - $6 billion that the Yacht Party will insist come in the form of destructive cuts that damage the economy, $6 billion that Democrats will - we hope - insist come in the form of wise, long-term revenue solutions.
Finally, Arnold seems to be gambling that the economy will make a quick recovery and that the current woes are just a dip and not the opening stages of a deeper recession. That, I think, is a major and probably reckless gamble to make.
