[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

So now that the pesky June primary is behind us, the real positioning for the 2010 gubernatorial race is officially underway.

The November 2008 election marks the official beginning of the end of the accidental Schwarzenegger governorship. Yet some of the prospective Democrats and Republicans already appear to be revving up their campaign engines for two years of marathon campaigning that will be required to clinch the gubernatorial nominations of their parties.

Nearly all of the leading contenders strutted their stuff at the California Democratic Party's recent jamboree in San Jose. While Attorney General Jerry Brown teased the attendees about his intentions, his all-but-announced entry in the race doesn't seem to be cooling the talk of alternatives. It's safe to say he won't have a clean shot at the Democratic nomination.

Meanwhile in Republican circles, ex-HP head honcho Carly Fiorina and ex-eBay president Meg Whitman are being talked about as potential rivals to the uninspiring Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner. The ultra-conservative wing of the GOP doesn't appear to have a horse in the race yet either, but that's only a matter of time.
So here's an updated look at the crowded Democratic field.

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

Field has now released more data on their marriage poll, and thanks to the generosity of the good folks at the SacBee's Capitol Alert, you now have access to a lot of data. From the main release, in addition to the numbers mentioned earlier, where 51% of californians approve of gay marriage, we get some other high level stuff:

These findings compare with the results of six previous Field Polls taken over the past three decades in which those supporting same-sex marriage were in the minority.  For example, thirty-one years ago in 1977, more than twice as many Californians disapproved as approved allowing of same-sex marriages (59% to 28%).  Over the years opposition for having regular marriage laws apply to gay and lesbian couples has decreased steadily to where a minority of voters now holds this position.

In other words, the trend is clear to see. Whether it's just the inevitable drift towards equality that occurs as younger, more equality-minded voters become a more powerful voting bloc, or whether this was the result of the marriage decision, the results are still there. And as dday points out (in the top Google News Story in the US section) in a guest post at Kevin Drum's place, Mark DiCamillo, Field's lead pollster these days, thinks that this is likely a combination of the two:

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Paul Hogarth

Yesterday’s decision by the California Supreme Court was historic because it set a huge precedent. Not because the Court found the ban on same-sex marriage similar to earlier bans on interracial marriage, nor because it said domestic partnerships are inherently unequal. What really mattered is that the Court ruled sexual orientation a “suspect class,” which means that all laws that discriminate on that basis must now pass strict scrutiny – a crucial step forward in the rights of LGBT people.

But same-sex couples in California still lack the federal benefits of marriage that straight people take for granted – like Social Security and immigration – because the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) precludes them from doing so. Marriage equality supporters must defeat a constitutional amendment in November that would repeal the Court’s ruling, but they also need a Democratic President. If DOMA gets repealed in 2009, gay couples in California will finally be equal in the eyes of the law.

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

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.

by Be_Devine [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

4-3 DECISION!!   THE GOOD GUYS AND GALS WON!!!!!

The decision can be read here.

The conclusion of the majority is:

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: "