Proposition 8

Scanning email and the news from Bern, here's a bit of d.d. news.

PALIN AND PROPS: The Washington Post takes a look at Gov. Sarah Palin's last-minute intervention on behalf of mining interests against a ballot initiative this August. The Post suggests she may have broken state law barring the use of government resources to support or oppose a ballot measure.

FIRST 'YES ON 8' AD: It's brutal but effective. The supporters of the same-sex marriage ban in California debut a clever TV advertisement that stars Gavin Newsom, a same-sex marriage supporter. They don't make an argument against the marriage. They make an argument that you're being forced to accept same-sex marriage. (Newsom is quoted as saying that such marriages are coming whether you like it or not). It's not an idea pulled out of thin air. The state Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage this spring declared that gay couples had a constitutional right to acceptance of how they form families. It was a strong moral argument, but, in my reporting, some same-sex marriage supporters worried that it might be vulnerable politically (and perhaps legally).

Supporters of the California initiative to ban same-sex marriage have outpaced opponents  thus far. More details in this Los Angeles Times story. Bob Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies, which recently completed an excellent report on initiatives, says that Prop 8 could prove to be the most expensive campaign ever waged over a social issue.

It's an older married couple, together for more than 40 years, sitting and facing the camera and asking people not to eliminate the right to marriage for "our gay daughter" and thousands like her.

The Wall Street Journal reports that some 40 percent of donations to the campaign in favor of Prop 8, the California initiative to ban same-sex marriage, come from Mormons. For my momey, the best part of the story is at the end, when one of the Yes on 8 campaign's evangelical leaders is grudgingly grateful for the cash, even as he says he wouldn't deign to talk with Mormons if it weren't for this campaign. C'mon guys, can't you get over ancient religious traditions and come together, accepting one another and feeling the love?

Oh, that's right. I forgot this is the Prop 8 campaign.

Supporters of Prop 8, the California ballot initiative to ban same sex marriage, have gone to court to reverse changes in the official title and summary. Their petition is available here.

After reading the briefs, I think the supporters have a strong case. The original title and summary, approved before the state supreme court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, read simply, "LIMIT ON MARRIAGE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Amends the California constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." After the court decision, the title now says, "ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME SEX COUPLES TO MARRY..." That's very, very argumentative. Whether there is such a right in the California constitution is the focus of the legal and political dispute that voters will decide in November.

Attorney General Jerry Brown has some justification for he change. The court identified a constitutional right to marry that includes same-sex couples. But the first title remains accurate, and the Prop 8 supporters should be able to put Brown on the defensive. The attorney general has publicly taken sides in the controversy. Your blogger thinks he's on the correct side, but in ballot initiative titles, the a.g. is supposed to accurately describe the measure, not argue the case. The outcome is important, as these titles do affect undecided voters.

REVISED, 7/28 (Earlier version said incorrectly that the Secretary of State writes title and summary; the attorney general does it.). The official title and summary has changed for the California initiative to ban gay marriage, in two significant ways. The new title-summary reflects the state supreme court decision determing there's a right to such marriage by adding that the ban would take away a constitutional right. The fiscal analysis also notes that the state would lose some tax revenue that is attributed to gay marriages. Expect litigation on both points. Supporters of the ban, Prop 8, could argue that we don't know the overall tax effect and that the legalization of same sex marriage could convince some people and businesses to leave the state, costing California tax revenues. They also could challenge the idea that the initiative takes away a constitutional right or amends the constitution.