Your blogger, whose favorite flavor is schadenfreude, has been amused as all sorts of people realize -- in the wake of the supreme court's decision upholding Prop 8 -- just how powerful and inflexible California's ballot initiative is, and how easy it would be for a majority to infringe on the rights or prerogatives of others.

But my favorite reaction so far comes from the atheist community, via The American Chronicle. Michael Doss, the California director of American Atheists, is quoted as saying of the decision: "Today, same-sex couples lost the right to marry via a citizen-driven ballot initiative. If one minority group can lose rights this way, there's very good reason to believe that any other, including atheists, could be next."

Well said. Do not fear God. Fear the initiative process.

The California Supreme Court's decision today to uphold Prop 8 is more about the California constitution and the initiative process (the true winner in the case) than it is about same-sex marriage. In effect, by a 6-1 vote, the court makes plain that it would have loved to overturn Prop 8--but couldn't because of the constitution.

And in the following passage from today's decision, the court seems to offer a suggestion to advocates of a constitutional convention: that the state needs provisions limiting the ability of the people to change certain parts of the constitution by initiative. The political problem with this is, of course, that advocates of such a convention desperately want to avoid having issues like same-sex marriage brought into the debate over a convention.

Anyway, here's the relevant passage:

I've just completed a very fast reading of the California Supreme Court decision this morning that upholds the Prop 8 ban on same-sex marriage -- and also upholds the legality of the approximately 18,000 gay couples who got married in the state last year.

As readers of this blog know, I'm a strong supporter of same-sex marriage -- but I think the court did the right thing. The California constitution is different than the U.S. constitution. The people have strong powers to change the constitution through the ballot initiative. To overturn Prop 8 would have forced the justices to rewrite the state constitution and strip the people of those powers. I believe that California's initiative process should be less powerful and more flexible, but this wasn't the case to do something about it.

The decision makes plain that Prop 8's effect is confined to one word; marriage. The court writes that gay couples must continue to have all the rights and responsibilities of married couples. But their unions can't be called marriages, because of Prop 8. 

The California Supreme Court just announced it will rule on legal challenges to Prop 8, the California initiative ban on same-sex marriage, on Tuesday.

You may have noticed that your blogger has been ignoring the hottest direct democracy story in the country: the controversy over Miss California's remarks in opposition to same-sex marriage (and thus in favor of the Prop 8 ban) in her home state.

Your blogger thought of posting on this subject, but worried it might seem like a cheap stunt to drive traffic (like the bloggers who add "Britney Spears" to the topics lists on their posts). Or a desperate bid for attention. Or that some might think that the picture of a beauty pageant queen had no place on the web site of a serious think tank.

But sometimes, the direct democracy news demands what the direct democracy news demands. And so I've waded into the tabloid swamp, via this item at Fox & Hounds Daily.

Also, I feel I must offer one unrelated bit of political analysis to deepen public understanding of Miss Prejean's ballot initiative stance. While your blogger strongly disagrees with her on Prop 8, her position is quite understandable, geographically speaking. The media organizations covering this public controversy have overlooked the important fact that she is from the San Diego area, which has been the unofficial headquarters of the same-sex marriage opposition in the state. Churches there provided much of the institutional support for the Prop 8 campaign.

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.

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.