ANOTHER Prop 8 Challenge: By A County Clerk This Time

[JakeStarkey]

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...

No one is worried because only the state has standing in this matter, not a county clerk or Silhouette or the streaking Dodgers.

 

[National Socialist]

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..

Why not just get another clerk to marry a same sex couple? Why waste his time and money on something he is going to lose?

 

[Seawytch]

What??? The only reason you object to the initiative system is because it makes it VERY difficult for the gay lobby to buy politicans to ram gay marriage through behind the public's back; and without their permission.

Um, no. I opposed the initiative system long before Prop 8.

No initiative or law passed by a state legislature can violate the US Constitution. Prop 8 did.

 

[Silhouette]

So then you're also opposed to the California state initiative law that bans offshore oil drilling too then? I mean, the fate of that decision is best left up to one or two politicians behind closed doors right?

No one is worried because only the state has standing in this matter, not a county clerk or Silhouette

Oh, only there's this little glitch in our justice system that says no state provision or lower court ruling may defy the Supreme Court's interpretation of constitutionality. And guess what? In the DOMA Opinion last month, the Court said state's have the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage within the context of the larger question of gay marriage being legal or not.

Let me render that down into simple terms for you.

1. That means gay marraige is not a constitutional guarantee and

2. All 50 states [not just 49 of them] get to say either "yes" or "no" to gay marriage. And they can do so legally, and constitutionally.

Sorry. That means Prop 8, purposefully linked to the DOMA hearing for reference, is constitutional and the valid law in California. You cannot wish away the initiative powers there. You have to hold a vote to see if Californians want to demolish their own initiative system... And don't hold your breath on that one.

The clerk in San Diego, America's 8th largest city and conservative stronghold, has a right and standing to ask the courts to clarify whether he is in contempt of an older, staler, lower court ruling saying that CA saying no to gay marraige is "unconstitutional" or if he is in contempt of the Supreme Court of the US, saying more recently, and superiorly, that his state saying "no" to gay marriage is in fact constitutional instead.

You see, if he defies either one right now he feels the threat of contempt of court hanging over his head...thanks to the extortive AG Kamala Harris in CA. So he want so call her out on her extortion and see if she's blowing smoke up his butt....which of course, she is...

...and she could get in big trouble for doing so..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette, no court is going to buy that nonsense.

Sorry, it is the way it is.

This is over, and we are going to make you marry someone of your own sex. Not.

 

[Seawytch]

So then you're also opposed to the California state initiative law that bans offshore oil drilling too then? I mean, the fate of that decision is best left up to one or two politicians behind closed doors right?

That is correct. I oppose the initiative process, period, no exceptions.

Oh, only there's this little glitch in our justice system that says no state provision or lower court ruling may defy the Supreme Court's interpretation of constitutionality. And guess what? In the DOMA Opinion last month, the Court said state's have the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage within the context of the larger question of gay marriage being legal or not.

Nope, guess again. They ruled only on pro, not anti marriage equality laws. The anti haven't had their day with the SCOTUS (yet)

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette, no court is going to buy that nonsense.

Sorry, it is the way it is.

Jake...lol... I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court is not going to overturn its recent findings in DOMA last month that each sovereign state, within the context of the question of the legality of so-called "gay marriage", has the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage for itself.

Nowhere was it upheld that gay marriage was a constitutional right. Therefore, denying it is not unconstitutional.

Not only will a court uphold California's rigth to deny gay marriage, THE Court will do so...

That's how law works. That's just the way it is...

 

[JakeStarkey]

You do not understand. This is not about constitutionality, it is about standing.

The state of CA is not going to accept any filings that oppose the federal finding.

 

[Silhouette]

The County Clerk of San Diego HAS standing to defend Prop 8. Just because they found one group didnt' have standing to defend public law in CA, doesn't mean that has instantly nullified any person stepping up to the plate who DOES have standing.

The County Clerk of San Diego, an elected public servant, has standing to ask for clarity and a definitive ruling on the Supreme Court of the US's ruling vs the lower court ruling. The Higher Ruling tells the clerk "your state was perfectly within its constitutional rights to say "no" to gay marriage". The lower ruling says "your state was not within its constitutional rights to say "no" to gay marriage". The clerk so finding himself in a pickle, has AMPLE STANDING and cause to bring the suit. He took an oath to uphold the CA AND the US Constitution. Which interpretation do you suppose will prevail when one diametrically opposed ruling faces off with the other?

..lol..

 

[Darkwind]

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm opposed to government being in any marriage, period.

However, a better law suit would be one in which people who support science in school are required to teach to our children that same sex attractions in nature are evolutionary blind alleys and dead ends. That nature considers same sex attractions as a threat to survival and will allow the aberrant behavior to die out.

 

[Silhouette]

That's a strawman but I agree Darkwind. Instead of teaching kids that sodomy is cool, resulting in an alarming increase of new HIV cases in boys ages 13-29 in just the same last 7 years as gay becoming the new "cool fad" for youngsters, we teach them that having sex with the lower digestive tract is a deadly dangerous game. We teach them at the earliest of ages: don't put anything EVER in your ears, eyes, nose or butt.

Just common sense lifesaving stuff...

 

[Seawytch]

I hope they find the clerk has standing. Fast track this sucker!!! Back to the SCOTUS!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The County Clerk of San Diego HAS standing to defend Prop 8. Just because they found one group didnt' have standing to defend public law in CA, doesn't mean that has instantly nullified any person stepping up to the plate who DOES have standing.

The County Clerk of San Diego, an elected public servant, has standing to ask for clarity and a definitive ruling on the Supreme Court of the US's ruling vs the lower court ruling. The Higher Ruling tells the clerk "your state was perfectly within its constitutional rights to say "no" to gay marriage". The lower ruling says "your state was not within its constitutional rights to say "no" to gay marriage". The clerk so finding himself in a pickle, has AMPLE STANDING and cause to bring the suit. He took an oath to uphold the CA AND the US Constitution. Which interpretation do you suppose will prevail when one diametrically opposed ruling faces off with the other?..lol..

The judge will not have to make any such decision, for s/he will issue a summary dismissal upon request by the State for lack of standing.

Why do you ignore the law?

 

[JakeStarkey]

These crazy social Christian nationalists sound as crazy as Orly Taitz, whose only defense is "I disagree."

 

[Darkwind]

That's a strawman but I agree Darkwind. Instead of teaching kids that sodomy is cool, resulting in an alarming increase of new HIV cases in boys ages 13-29 in just the same last 7 years as gay becoming the new "cool fad" for youngsters, we teach them that having sex with the lower digestive tract is a deadly dangerous game. We teach them at the earliest of ages: don't put anything EVER in your ears, eyes, nose or butt.

Just common sense lifesaving stuff...

What is a strawman? I don't think that government has a right to be inside you, My, or anyone's bedroom, living room, kitchen, basement, back yard, or anywhere else.

 

[EriktheRed]

California’s highest court refused Tuesday to block the state from sanctioning same-sex marriages while it considers a petition arguing that a voter-approved gay marriage ban remains valid in all but two counties.

Without comment, the California Supreme Court rejected a request from the elected government official in charge of issuing marriage licenses in San Diego County for an order halting gay marriages, which resumed in the state last month for the first time since the ban passed in November 2008.

California Court Rejects Attempt To Halt Gay Marriages

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course the filing was rejected.

 

[Silhouette]

Very misleading guys. The Kourt in Kalifornia didn't block the ENTIRE CASE...only the preliminary injuction seeking to halt gay marriages while it proceeds...

And nobody on the Prop 8/CA intitiative system side of the fence is dying from shock that this oligarchy continues to slam its iron fist from the bench...lol..

The case is made and tailored to go before the US Supreme Court. It is precisely because of the swiftness of denial, gay judges ripping the Will of 7 million away, and judicial activism in that state that any true justice anyomore can only be had outside of it.

Stay tuned. For this is FAR from over..

 

[bodecea]

Very misleading guys. The Kourt in Kalifornia didn't block the ENTIRE CASE...only the preliminary injuction seeking to halt gay marriages while it proceeds...

And nobody on the Prop 8/CA intitiative system side of the fence is dying from shock that this oligarchy continues to slam its iron fist from the bench...lol..

The case is made and tailored to go before the US Supreme Court. It is precisely because of the swiftness of denial, gay judges ripping the Will of 7 million away, and judicial activism in that state that any true justice anyomore can only be had outside of it.

Stay tuned. For this is FAR from over..

The dying throes of the American Taliban? Yeah, I imagine there will be some more flopping around.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The evangelical and fundamentalist social Christian nationalists, all of the big government right wing statists, are indeed in the movement's "death throes."