Probably not. Iowa, where the state supreme court today found unconstitutional the state's law limiting marriage to a man and a woman, does not have statewide ballot initiatives. (The legislature actually approved direct democracy in the 1910s, but the question never made it to the people for ratification, according to the Initiative & Referendum Institute). And the process of amending the constitution is long and laborious. Legislators would have to vote for an amendment in two consecutive sessions. Then voters would have to adopt the amendment. By my calculation, the earliest that could happen would be in 2012.

A vote then would make same-sex marriage a big issue in the presidential election. But this is a powerful decision by a unanimous court (a link to the text is here); this non-lawyer read it this afternoon and found it to be more narrow and better drafted than the California Supreme Court decision (which, in addition to legalizing same-sex marriage, made gay people a protected class and discovered an unwritten right to have your family decisions respected in the state constitution).

I must confess that I thought this was an April Fool's joke. But Howard Ahmanson, longtime funder of conservative and Christian causes (including the Prop 8 ban on same-sex marriage), tells the Louisville (Ky.) Courier-Journal that he's become a Democrat.

Why? He says he couldn't stomach the California Republican Party and its narrow-minded opposition to taxes at all times and for any reason. "They're providing one issue and it's just a very silly issue," Ahmanson told the paper.

It appears that the California GOP's "heads on sticks" campaign against any Republican who would raise taxes -- even with the state staring into the fiscal abyss -- is not just irresponsible. It's costly.

One might think Gordon Brown would have better things to do (perhaps saving the world's financial capital, London, and its leading institutions) than wade into California politics. But late last week, during a reception for gay leaders at Downing Street, he criticized Prop 8, the ban on same-sex marriage, according to the BBC. "This attempt to undo good that has been done is unacceptable," Brown said.

Fine, but the UK is no better than California when it comes to same-sex marriage. Both places permit same-sex civil partnerships, but not marriages.

I filed this item as my Fox & Hounds Daily column while watching this morning's California Supreme Court hearing on the challenges to Prop 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage:

The California Supreme Court hears the challenges to Prop 8 tomorrow morning. And you may have heard that Cal Channel, which broadcasts government hearings, will show the hearing live on its web site.

But as someone who has long experience with Cal Channel, don't count on being able to access that video. Cal Channel is a small operation that is decidedly not ready for prime time. This year's State of the State address -- an essentially meaningless speech that few cared about -- was a minor disaster, with the Internet feed going in and out. It's a good bet that Cal Channel's servers will be quickly overwhelmed by interested parties. Cal Channel's web site has already posted the following warning: "Due to the high demand we expect for this event, if you have problems connecting then the server has reached its limit. Please try back later and watch the video in our archive when it concludes." D

If you want to see it, you're better off looking for it on TV (check your cable provider in California for those who have Cal Channel). Expect some cable news channels to show parts of it.

I'm out of California this week and not monitoring direct democracy with my usual fervor. The goal is to get some writing done. Sad to miss Thursday's oral arguments before the state Supreme Court on the legal challenges to Prop 8, California's same-sex marriage ban. I'll weigh in when I'm back next weekend.

President Clinton is scheduled to give a speech Sunday in San Diego to something called the International Franchise Association. Bad move. The location of the speech is a Hyatt hotel that has been the subject of a boycott by the No on 8 folks (that is, supporters of same-sex marriage) since the hotel's owner gave to the Yes on 8 campaign during last year's initiative campaign. The Courage Campaign, a progressive group with an an active Internet organizing operation here in California, is sending out emails and petitions urging Clinton to cancel the speech. Labor unions, which have been battling the hotel, also are boycotting.

A federal judge has ruled that the names of Prop 8 donors have to be disclosed, turning aside a legal challenge that argued that disclosing the donors would subject them to harassment.

In California last year, the rights of a small minority were the target of a ballot initiative campaign. The minority rallied, but its campaign was overwhelmed by a better-run campaign on the yes side, and by what the minority saw as bias and misinformation.

I'm not talking about Prop 8. The minority in this case is California's farmers, who were on the losing side of Prop 2, an initiative backed by the Humane Society to impose limits on how chickens and other animals can be confined. The farmers are furious at the result, and they're gathering together to figure out how to combat misinformation and get out the word that farmers are just like everybody else. Details on a recent post-Prop 2 meeting of farmers are in this Visalia Times-Delta editorial.

Who is the next victim of the ugly campaign for and against Prop 8? Perhaps immigrants who don't speak English and live in middle Tennessee.

Backers of Prop 8 have gone to court, saying that public finance disclosure rules was a threat to the security of their financial supporters. The same argument has now surfaced in Nashville, which is in the middle of a campaign over a citywide English-only ballot initiative. Backers of the initiative have refused to comply with financial disclosure rules, saying that such disclosure would subject backers to intimidation. This is nonsense, and shows a lack of respect for the law that the courts must stop--now-- and that the voters should punish.