ANOTHER Prop 8 Challenge: By A County Clerk This Time

[Silhouette]

July 18, 2013

County Clerk Ernest J. Dronenburg, Jr. has had enough. He isn't bending to threats and tyranny from King Jerry the Brown nor his Consort AG Kamala Harris.

ERNEST J. DRONENBURG, JR., in his official capacity as County
Clerk of San Diego County,
Petitioner,
v.
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., in his official capacity as Governor of the
State of California; KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of California; RON CHAPMAN, in his
official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public
Health; TONY AGURTO, in his official capacity as State Registrar of
Vital Statistics and Assistant Deputy Director of Health Information and
Strategic Planning of the California Department of Public Health, Respondents....

...By this Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate, Petitioner
Ernest J. Dronenburg, Jr., in his official capacity as County Clerk of San
Diego County, hereby respectfully requests a writ of mandate ordering
Respondents—Edmund G. Brown Jr., in his official capacity as Governor
of the State of California; Kamala D. Harris, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of California; Dr. Ron Chapman, in his
official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health;
and Tony Agurto, in his official capacity as State Registrar of Vital
Statistics and Assistant Deputy Director of Health Information and
Statistics and Assistant Deputy Director of Health Information and
Strategic Planning of the California Department of Public Health (hereafter
referred to as the State Registrar)—to execute their supervisory duties,
which do not include control over county clerks issuing marriage licenses,
consistent with state law limitations.

2. Petitioner also requests an immediate temporary stay during
the pendency of these writ proceedings (1) that orders Respondents not to
enforce the State Registrar’s directive commanding county clerks to issue
marriage licenses contrary to state law defining marriage as the union
between one man and one woman, and (2) that directs Petitioner to refrain
from issuing marriage licenses contrary to state law defining marriage as
the union between one man and one woman until this Court settles the
important issues raised in this Petition. Petitioner has been placed in an
unsustainable position because, among other things, he has been threatened
with legal action by the Attorney General for exercising his public duties
consistent with state law defining marriage as the union between one man
and one woman. The urgency demanding this immediate temporary stay
derives primarily from the need to provide legal clarity regarding
Petitioner’s duty to issue marriage licenses in accordance with state law.

This Petition raises fundamental questions of state law that
affect Petitioner’s legal duty to issue marriage licenses. Respondents have
ordered Petitioner to stop enforcing state law that defines marriage as the
union between one man and one woman. In support of their order,
Respondents claim that Petitioner is bound by a federal court injunction
that prohibits enforcement of that state marriage law because, according to
Respondents, state law provides them with authority to supervise or control
county clerks issuing marriage licenses. Petitioner, however, asserts that
state law does not give Respondents this authority over him, and for this
reason, among others discussed in the accompanying Memorandum of
Points and Authorities....

This Court should grant the relief requested in this Petition
because state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman
continues to govern throughout the State; Respondents’ clear and present
duties do not afford them supervisory control over Petitioner; Respondents
have ordered Petitioner not to enforce state law defining marriage as a
union between a man and a woman; Petitioner has a beneficial interest in
enforcing state marriage law as provided in duly enacted constitutional and
statutory provisions free of unlawful supervision or directives; Petitioner
has a beneficial interest in obtaining legal clarity regarding his duty to issue
marriage licenses in accordance with state law; and (since Petitioner is not
bound by the above-mentioned federal court injunction) Petitioner must
enforce state marriage law notwithstanding Respondents’ contrary order.
http://savecalifornia.com/images/stories/PDFs/clerkwritpetition.pdf

Houston, I believe we have a clear and concise case on proper legal standing. You cannot order a County Clerk to defy their Oath of Office to uphold duly enacted Law in the State of California, or anywhere else for that matter. This man has been squarely placed between a rock and a hard place. His career stands perched on a cliff. Apparently, he has brass nuggets and takes his sworn duty as a public servant seriously.

Hat's off to San Diego. Look for more worried clerks who don't want to defy their Oath of Office to join the ranks..

 

[J.E.D]

Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states soon enough. Get over it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states soon enough. Get over it.

Then the religious rights of others will have to be protected. The people will be taking direct action themselves, but that's as it should be.

 

[J.E.D]

Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states soon enough. Get over it.

Then the religious rights of others will have to be protected. The people will be taking direct action themselves, but that's as it should be.

You and the Tralier Park Brigade are going to start a new inquisition? I'm sure that'll go real far

 

[Silhouette]

I'd hardly call the city/county of San Diego "the trailer park brigade". It's the 8th largest city in the US and one of the largest counties in California. It's very conservative, military and hispanic catholics. Apparently they're not amused by their votes being crushed like peanut shells...

Yes, I could just as easily say that gay marriage will be un-legalized in some states due to the blatant tyranny in California where gays are using their pocket-men in high places to force this Agenda on 7 million voters, and destroying their initiative system in the process..

 

[Papageorgio]

Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states soon enough. Get over it.

If that is what each state individually wants it, then so be it. The federal government shouldn't be a part of the process.

 

[Katzndogz]

No nation in all of history has survived legalization and normalization of homosexual relationships. We are on the wrong side of history. This country has many reasons to tear itself apart, this is just one.

In every instance, the culture imposed on the failed nation is one that does not recognize the validity of same sex relationships. It's a value that has never been passed on.

 

[Seawytch]

I say again...

Whoopie! Back to the SCOTUS! I hope they find the Clerk has standing.

What will their defense of the law be? What "reasonable person standard" will they use in denying gay and lesbian couples equal access to legal, civil marriage? What's gonna convince the court? Sin? Ickyness? Your inability to talk to your children?

Come on, what will the San Diego Clerk's Argument be (in front of the SCOTUS) that can support violating tax paying American citizen's 14th Amendment right to equal protection?

 

[Silhouette]

The standing is the DOMA Opinion and it's Finding that states have a constitutional right to define marriage for themselves. California cannot be the exception. The standing is rogue public servants in California in contempt of the Supreme Court of the United States.

If you want gay marriage in California, do it LEGALLY. Put an initiative on the ballot. It will have no trouble clearing the hurdles from the obviously gay-activist government out there to get on the ballot. Do it this way so that gay marriage might have a shot at becoming legal in California for the first time.

No nation in all of history has survived legalization and normalization of homosexual relationships. We are on the wrong side of history. This country has many reasons to tear itself apart, this is just one.

In every instance, the culture imposed on the failed nation is one that does not recognize the validity of same sex relationships. It's a value that has never been passed on.

I posted on another thread somewhere katzndogz that every time a nation embraces homosexuality is right before its fall and death. The indulgent and decadent attitudes that have to accompany homosexuality and other addictive sexual deviances by their very nature are the clue that a nation is near collapse.

I myself would prefer not to see that in my lifetime.

 

[Seawytch]

Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states soon enough. Get over it.

If that is what each state individually wants it, then so be it. The federal government shouldn't be a part of the process.

Well, they still are tho' doncha know. Part of the unconstitutional DOMA is still in place. Only part of it was a question before the SCOTUS. We gotta get us the other part now, that Section 2 that says my legal marriage license can be treated differently in Alabama than it is in New York...but yers cain't.

 

[Seawytch]

No nation in all of history has survived legalization and normalization of homosexual relationships. We are on the wrong side of history. This country has many reasons to tear itself apart, this is just one.

In every instance, the culture imposed on the failed nation is one that does not recognize the validity of same sex relationships. It's a value that has never been passed on.

I posted on another thread somewhere katzndogz that every time a nation embraces homosexuality is right before its fall and death. The indulgent and decadent attitudes that have to accompany homosexuality and other addictive sexual deviances by their very nature are the clue that a nation is near collapse.

I myself would prefer not to see that in my lifetime.

Really? Which nation fell because gays were able to legally marry each other?

The part of Rome's fall that had to do with sex had to do with promiscuity, not two tax paying citizens who love each other and want to protect and honor their partnerships and make decisions for one another. You know that right?

 

[Silhouette]

If that is what each state individually wants it, then so be it. The federal government shouldn't be a part of the process.
Well, they still are tho' doncha know. Part of the unconstitutional DOMA is still in place. Only part of it was a question before the SCOTUS. We gotta get us the other part now, that Section 2 that says my legal marriage license can be treated differently in Alabama than it is in New York...but yers cain't.

Please stop talking like a hillbilly to mock other intelligent people who have real and compelling stances that differ from yours. It adds nothing to the weight of your points Seawytch.

Are you arguing that since New Hampshire allows 13 year olds to marry, that the other 50 states must allow that also? Or acknowledge it? And when Utah allows polygamists to marry, must all other 50 states allow that also? Or just acknowledge it?

Here's the point that should have you a bit nervous about the chances of gays getting special class or a fast track on marriage with help from the fed. The fact that the Supreme Court brought up Section II, but did not voluntarily demolish it as part of the overall Decision means that they feel strongly enough about so-called gay marriage being an untested oddball that they would allow even [by omission to address it or roll it back] other states to refuse to acknowledge gay marriage. That's Them telling you where they rank "gay marriage" on the "protected-mandate scale". It's about a 2 out of 10.

 

[OKTexas]

I say again...

Whoopie! Back to the SCOTUS! I hope they find the Clerk has standing.

What will their defense of the law be? What "reasonable person standard" will they use in denying gay and lesbian couples equal access to legal, civil marriage? What's gonna convince the court? Sin? Ickyness? Your inability to talk to your children?

Come on, what will the San Diego Clerk's Argument be (in front of the SCOTUS) that can support violating tax paying American citizen's 14th Amendment right to equal protection?

They have always had equal protection, they want special privilege, there's a difference.

 

[EriktheRed]

I'd hardly call the city/county of San Diego "the trailer park brigade". It's the 8th largest city in the US and one of the largest counties in California. It's very conservative, military and hispanic catholics. Apparently they're not amused by their votes being crushed like peanut shells...

Yes, I could just as easily say that gay marriage will be un-legalized in some states due to the blatant tyranny in California where gays are using their pocket-men in high places to force this Agenda on 7 million voters, and destroying their initiative system in the process..

Fag-bashers lost. That's just the way it is.

 

[OKTexas]

I'd hardly call the city/county of San Diego "the trailer park brigade". It's the 8th largest city in the US and one of the largest counties in California. It's very conservative, military and hispanic catholics. Apparently they're not amused by their votes being crushed like peanut shells...

Yes, I could just as easily say that gay marriage will be un-legalized in some states due to the blatant tyranny in California where gays are using their pocket-men in high places to force this Agenda on 7 million voters, and destroying their initiative system in the process..

Fag-bashers lost. That's just the way it is.

Yet the law remains enforce, go figure.

 

[Katzndogz]

The gays in San Diego are all that's helping fellow pervert Bob Filner hang onto office after harassing and assaulting women. The decent people want him gone, but he has a big constituency among perverts so he continues to hang onto his job.

 

[Cowman]

Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states soon enough. Get over it.

If that is what each state individually wants it, then so be it. The federal government shouldn't be a part of the process.

You know, when it comes to human rights, I agree with you.

Let's let Arizona throw all the Mexicans into concentration camps and execute them.

STATE'S RIGHTS, BABY!

 

[Seawytch]

The standing is the DOMA Opinion and it's Finding that states have a constitutional right to define marriage for themselves. California cannot be the exception. The standing is rogue public servants in California in contempt of the Supreme Court of the United States.

If you want gay marriage in California, do it LEGALLY. Put an initiative on the ballot. It will have no trouble clearing the hurdles from the obviously gay-activist government out there to get on the ballot. Do it this way so that gay marriage might have a shot at becoming legal in California for the first time.

No nation in all of history has survived legalization and normalization of homosexual relationships. We are on the wrong side of history. This country has many reasons to tear itself apart, this is just one.

In every instance, the culture imposed on the failed nation is one that does not recognize the validity of same sex relationships. It's a value that has never been passed on.

I posted on another thread somewhere katzndogz that every time a nation embraces homosexuality is right before its fall and death. The indulgent and decadent attitudes that have to accompany homosexuality and other addictive sexual deviances by their very nature are the clue that a nation is near collapse.

I myself would prefer not to see that in my lifetime.

The DOMA ruling only applies to states that have not chosen to violate the rights of gays and lesbians...not those that have. Those have yet to be ruled upon by the highest court.

 

[Seawytch]

I say again...

Whoopie! Back to the SCOTUS! I hope they find the Clerk has standing.

What will their defense of the law be? What "reasonable person standard" will they use in denying gay and lesbian couples equal access to legal, civil marriage? What's gonna convince the court? Sin? Ickyness? Your inability to talk to your children?

Come on, what will the San Diego Clerk's Argument be (in front of the SCOTUS) that can support violating tax paying American citizen's 14th Amendment right to equal protection?

They have always had equal protection, they want special privilege, there's a difference.

Really? What special privilege? Isn't it you who believes you have the special privilege and you don't want gay couples to have it?

 

[Seawytch]

If that is what each state individually wants it, then so be it. The federal government shouldn't be a part of the process.
Well, they still are tho' doncha know. Part of the unconstitutional DOMA is still in place. Only part of it was a question before the SCOTUS. We gotta get us the other part now, that Section 2 that says my legal marriage license can be treated differently in Alabama than it is in New York...but yers cain't.

Please stop talking like a hillbilly to mock other intelligent people who have real and compelling stances that differ from yours. It adds nothing to the weight of your points Seawytch.

Are you arguing that since New Hampshire allows 13 year olds to marry, that the other 50 states must allow that also? Or acknowledge it? And when Utah allows polygamists to marry, must all other 50 states allow that also? Or just acknowledge it?

Here's the point that should have you a bit nervous about the chances of gays getting special class or a fast track on marriage with help from the fed. The fact that the Supreme Court brought up Section II, but did not voluntarily demolish it as part of the overall Decision means that they feel strongly enough about so-called gay marriage being an untested oddball that they would allow even [by omission to address it or roll it back] other states to refuse to acknowledge gay marriage. That's Them telling you where they rank "gay marriage" on the "protected-mandate scale". It's about a 2 out of 10.

The "us" I was referring to was gays, not backwards rednecks that think gays are icky. Pay attention to context.

Section 2 was not a question before the court. They couldn't just voluntarily strike it down since it hasn't been challenged...yet. (At the SCOTUS level anyway)