UPDATE: 5:10 pm: This post has been updated with a comment by the County Assessor.
UPDATE: 6:15 pm: This post has been updated with a comment by the State Attorney General.
_____
San Diego County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk Ernest J. Dronenburg has filed a petition with the California Supreme Court challenging the State of California order to all county clerks ordering the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The online case summary, listed as Dronenburg v. Governor Jerry Brown, shows the case being initiated today. The brief description is noted as “Petition for writ of mandate/prohibition with request for stay file.” A copy of the full filing is not online as of this writing, but the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, representing Dronenburg, responded to SD Rostra with the following statement…
Based on a District Court order invalidating Proposition 8, the voter-approved amendment to California’s Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, California’s county clerks have been instructed by the State Registrar to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The California Constitution prohibits officials from refusing to enforce a law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, however, unless an appellate court has made that determination. Because the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision only, there is no appellate decision holding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. As a result, Proposition 8 is still good law, and the District Court injunction against should apply only to the parties in that case. Accordingly, San Diego County Clerk Ernest Dronenberg has asked the California Supreme Court for clarification of the scope of his duty in issuing marriage licenses.
“I want clarity and certainty,” Dronenburg said, “and I want the California Supreme Court to provide those things. The court needs to address the jurisdictional issues. There are 20 counties filing briefs — I am just one. I’m issuing licenses and will continue to do so, but this issue will never end until the court provides finality.”
California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris issued a statement in response to Dronenburg’s petition, saying, “The filing offers no new arguments that could deny same-sex couples their constitutionally protected civil rights. The federal injunction is still in effect, and it requires all 58 counties to perform same-sex marriages. No exceptions.”
A message seeking a statement was also left for attorney Charles Limandri with the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund.
Comments 69
I’m so glad someone is standing up to the Governor and doing something to try to preserve our initiative process and the independence of elected County Clerks! Thank you, Mr. Dronenburg.
Is the County Assessor claiming that he need not follow any Superior Court ruling that is not appealed and upheld by an Appelate Court?
A huge “THANK YOU” to my friend since high school for stepping up and taking a truly courageous stand for law and order in our state. I’m grateful, encouraged, and proud to know you, Ernie!
HQ, we will seek to determine that. It seems Dennis Hollingsworth was arguing similarly a few weeks ago. We’ll also ask him if he cares to weigh in on the matter. Note the statement that Dronenburg has “asked the California Supreme Court for clarification…”
Bigotry, even when cunningly disguised under the guise of “law” does not have a place in the United States. There should be psychological tests applied to future Federal and State employees of the United States to verify that indeed they hold the desire to serve under the guise of bettering ones country through constitutional channels and humane thought, not through religious programming.
So, Anna. Bigotry has no place, but the Thought Police do? Just asking.
T.A.,
It seems to me that many laws are passed that are never even challenged in court and others are challenged but never appealed to the next level. I can’t believe the FOC Defense Fund (if not the County Assessor) is making the legal claim that elected officials can choose to ignore any of those laws anytime THEY believe the law is unconstitutional.
A comment from Dronenburg has been added to the post.
T.A. I think I understand what you mean; that these clerks know they are violating the State Constitution by issuing these licenses, since Prop 8 has not been declared unconstitutional by an appellate court. But it is the GOVERNOR who is claiming that he “can choose to ignore any of those laws any time [he believes’] the law is unconstitutional” and illegally order them to violate the State Constitution.
If you look at Article 3, section 3.5 of the State Constitution, it is VERY clear that the constitutional provisions enacted by Prop 8 are still good law and that none of these clerks, nor the Department of Public Health, nor the Governor may legally refuse to enforce those provisions unless they are declared unconstitutional by a valid appellate court ruling, which we DO NOT have since the 9th Circuit’s ruling has been vacated.
By the way, as I read this, the question before the State Supreme Court isn’t the constitutionality of Prop 8. It is the legality of the Governor’s order. Clerks do absolutely have to obey the law,. Their oath of office, however, requires them to uphold the State Constitution. It doesn’t require them to blindly follow an order from the Governor which may not have been legally issued. THAT is what they have asked the State Supreme Court to determine.
Hopefully he will get the right answer from the Supreme Court, that it in fact is legal, and he is to continue issuing licenses. He’s not bound by anything if he does the County of San Diego residents a favor, and retires.
If in fact I do get married in the future, and he is still in office, I’ll be sure to go elsewhere. I wouldn’t want to offend his political and bigoted beliefs by requesting a license through his office.
Karen,
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the case was improperly before a Federal Appellate Court and therefore the lower Federal Court ruling that Prop 8 was illegal based on the U.S. Constitution stands. This has nothing to do with the California Constitution.
Nice going. Filner is smiling ear to ear right now. Right when Filner is on the ropes the clerk drops this bomb on a Friday afternoon. Even Greg Cox immediately issued a clarification.
Whatever your thoughts are on this matter, this is being pushed by the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund. A brief perusal of their web site will tell you who they are.
This is the last thing the city of San Diego needed right now.
We’ll just assume Chris Nichols at the UT didn’t see the story on the petition posted by Rostra at 3:59 p.m. and tweeted and retweeted dozens of times, before he posted his story about an hour later.
The MSM adage: Blogs are great as a source, but we don’t credit them.
Hypocrisy: Read Article 3, section 3.5 of the State Constitution. It requires an APPEALS court ruling. Judge Walker’s District Court ruling is insufficient to remove the constitutional provisions enacted to Prop 8 from the State Constitution, and it requires that all state agencies, including the Governor and the Department of Public Health, to enforce them whether they like it or not.
This isn’t a City issue, Bill. This is a County issue, and it affects every clerk in every county in this state. We absolutely need for the State Supreme Court to clarify which law the Clerks are required to obey; the State Constitution or an illegal order from the Governor imposing SSM on this state against the will of the voters, and at the same time totally obliterating our state initiative process. I expect they will stand for the voters, as they did last time.
If you don’t like these provisions of the State Constitution, then organize a ballot initiative to LEGALLY repeal them in the next election. Don’t use illegal tactics to try to get the law to do what you KNOW the law does not permit.
“There should be psychological tests applied to future Federal and State employees of the United States to verify that indeed they hold the desire to serve under the guise of bettering ones country through constitutional channels and humane thought, not through religious programming.”
Wow! Margaret Sanger just commented on SDRostra
A state amendment was established legalizing same-sex marriage. Prop 8 was in response to that. The District Court issued a stay on their ruling until the 9th circuit court of appeals could hear it. The court of appeals also ordered that the proposition was unconstitutional, but also ordered a stay until the US Supreme Court heard the case.
SCOTUS ruled that the people defending Prop 8 had no standing to appeal the District Court’s ruling, because they were not directly impacted by the ruling (eg. THEIR marriages weren’t in dispute) and because the only people that COULD defend the propostion (eg. the Governor) refused to do so, that means NO ONE in California is able to legally defend it, so the District Court’s ruling stands.
Now, I can understand people coming out of the woodworks all butt-hurt because SCOTUS ruled that the people of CA did something illegal by voting on the rights of a minority, AFTER the state already granted those rights. (You can’t give rights then take them away. THAT is unconstitutional.) I am pleased he is being a legally-bound assessor by “continuing to issue same-sex marriage licenses” like he’d been told to.
But bottom line: The court ruled the proposition unconstitutional. And the ONLY people legally allowed to challenge that ruling refused to do so. There is NO ONE LEFT to challenge it, so the California Supreme Court won’t hear it, I can damn near guarantee.
Even if they do, in the end I know justice will prevail. California should have been the first state to legalize Gay Marriage, not the 13th. Irregardless, it is now the law of the land, and the biggots are just going to have to get over it. These last-ditch desperate attempts at stopping it aren’t going to work.
TA,
I’m pretty sure Chris Nichols didn’t steal the story from SD Rostra. He’s a good reporter and an honest man.
How is it that a person trying simply to clarify the law can be called a bigot? EXCUSE ME?
To be clear, he did say that our county will continue on as it has been, complying with the Governor’s order until he gets clarification.
However, I absolutely applaud him for seeking clarification of the court. It would be wrong of him to continue not knowing whether what he is doing is legal, or whether he is violating the State Constitution or his oath of office by continuing. Good for him!
Once again a right wing whacko is making a complete fool of himself. You cant stop progress Ernie. Your religion is NOT my law. Don’t try to impose it on us. You OR Limandri. This is the height of disrespect to the citizens of SD County – YOU BETTER NOT BE SPENDING ONE DIME OF COUNTY MONEY IN THIS EFFORT.
Karen Grube said “This isn’t a City issue, Bill. This is a County issue, and it affects every clerk in every county in this state. We absolutely need for the State Supreme Court to clarify which law the Clerks are required to obey…”
If the story began and ended with what you wrote, then it would be ok. But Dronenburg did this in cooperation with the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund. That’s going to be the part that blows up in his face, I’m afraid.
The State Supreme Court has already voiced their opinion; they were the legal entity that originally ruled that same-sex marriages are legal. To think they would come back 5 years later and magically change their minds is ridiculous.
“California voters approved Proposition 8 in 2008 with 52% of the vote shortly after the state Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriages are legal. The measure put gay and lesbian marriages on hold in the state, but a federal appeals court later rule Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.”
Bradley, we trust you and accept your statement that the UT came across it independently of Greg. Maybe we are too hyper-sensitive on these issues, based on past experience.
Thanks to CityBeat for the mention…
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/blog-1301-et-tu-ernie-dronenbu.html
The ONLY opinion the State Supreme Court has issued on Prop 8 was to uphold the voters’ ability to define marriage within the State Constitution. They have NEVER ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. There is NO valid appellate court decision at this point declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional, and until there is, it remains the law in California, despite the Governor’s illegal order. You all do know that the ONLY appellate court decision, that of the 9th Circuit, has been vacated and that the District Court’s decision is insufficient to repeal the constitutional provisions enacted by Prop 8. You do know this, right? You’ve all read Article 3, section 3.5 of the State Constitution, right? I hope so.
Frankly, Bill, I don’t care from whom Mr. Dronenburg sought representation. I’m just glad it wasn’t County Counsel, because it means that the representation is pro bono. WE ARE NOT PAYING FOR THIS, so let’s get that objection out of the way, shall we?
If you don’t like the law, change it legally. There’s nothing stopping anyone from starting up another ballot initiative to define marriage however they want. THAT would at least be legal. But what the Governor did overstepped his legal authority and is likely to be found illegal. At least we should all hope so, or it means the end of our initiative process. No one would ever propose another initiative for fear the Governor wouldn’t find some excuse not to like it and just repeal it by executive fiat as he is attempting with Prop 8,
By the way, where did Harris get her law degree? There are absolutely NO “constitutionally protected civil rights” being violated by Prop 8. The Supreme Court DID NOT rule on the Constitutionality of Prop 8 and she knows it! How can we possibly keep electing people who keep lying like this? Vote smarter next time people,
The sponsors of this little misadventure on the part of our County Clerk tell you all you need to know about their intent. They are Christian Taliban, and they will not be happy until they have us all under the thumb of their sick theocracy. As to the merits of the case, amateur lawyers can howl all you want about what the CA State Constitution says and does not say. It does not matter one whit what the state constituion says. Can any of you high school graduates out there tell me why? A federal district judge ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. Hardly a technicality, since the concept of Standing is a bedrock principal in american law, SCOTUS allowed that ruling to stand in its entirety. Game. Set. Match. This petition will be laughed out of court first thing Monday morning, as it should be.
Karen wrote: “Frankly, Bill, I don’t care from whom Mr. Dronenburg sought representation. I’m just glad it wasn’t County Counsel, because it means that the representation is pro bono. WE ARE NOT PAYING FOR THIS, so let’s get that objection out of the way, shall we…?”
Except Dronenburg said he consulted county counsel, but they’ve denied it. And it certainly does matter who Dronenburg sought representation from, since, as he said, he wanted clarification of his official job. If Dronenburg wanted to file this as a private citizen then more power to him, but he didn’t.
I can’t believe he was this naive.
Where did he say that he consulted County Counsel, Bill. I don’t think he did, but if you can show me such a statement, I’ll gladly take that back.
Actually, DON, it does matter what the State Supreme Court says and what the State Constitution says. The District Court decision isn’t sufficient to repeal a State Constitutional provision. It just isn’t. Had the Appellate Court decision stood, I would agree. But that ruling has been vacated. I don’t know if the State Supreme Court will allow the ruling of one judge to overturn a provision of the State Constitution. They may, but that would set a horrible precedent for them. Almost as bad a precedent as the one they’d be setting if they let the Governor get away with repealing any legally-approved voter initiative just because he didn’t like it.
Federal Courts trump State Courts. Period.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as “the supreme law of the land.” The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.
A Federal Court ruled Proposition 8 was illegal and this was appealed up to the United States Supreme Court which said the proponents of Prop. 8 lacked standing to appeal (a very careful move, by the way–designed to keep same-sex marriage from following the path of Loving v. Virginia) so the original ruling stood. The stay was lifted so we’re back to when the California Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage should be allowed. You know, the act that caused Prop. 8 to be filed in the first place? Such short memories some people have.
Karen,
You would possibly be right if the District Court ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional because it violated the California Constitution. That would possibly need an appellate decision. However, the ruling said Prop 8 violated the United States Constitution. You are mixing apples and oranges and although you can be forgiven for making that mistake, I certainly thought our County Assessor was smarter than that.
“Where did he say that he consulted County Counsel, Bill. I don’t think he did, but if you can show me such a statement, I’ll gladly take that back.”
It was the UT article, but they’ve since updated it. Hopefully this will wash out in the next day or two.
But let’s get real. If Mr. Dronenburg was serious about clarification, all he needed to do was consult county council. In private.
Dronenburg must not want his job anymore. He’ll be recalled or, at the least, lose his next election. Few people care about the assessor position, but when you politicize it so dramatically the way this guy is, you anger a lot of people who then care about getting *you* out. Bye bye, Dronenburg.
“Bye bye, Dronenburg.”
This may lower Dronenburg’s total vote from 78% to 76.8%. Serial users of his department love him (for good reason). He and Dan McAllister were two of the best things that happened on a County-wide level.
I appreciate County Clerk Ernie Dronenburg for asking the courts to clarify how come at least a dozen states have voted for traditional marriage and their votes count while our Prop. 8 vote doesn’t count? Regardless of your position on the issue, this needs to be clarified. Legal “rush jobs”don’t benefit anyone in the long run.
Tony,
I think you and Karen are missing the point. The California Supreme Court no longer has any jurisdiction over this matter. If our County Assessor needs clarification, he needs to ask the Federal Court that ruled Prop 8 to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
I also am not sure how a multi-year legal battle that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court could be called a “legal rush job.”
Point of fact: Dronenburg is not merely asking for clarification, he contends Prop. 8 is still valid. Look at what he wrote:
“Because the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision only, there is no appellate decision holding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. As a result, Proposition 8 is still good law, and the District Court injunction against should apply only to the parties in that case.”
To the extent that Dronenburg is asking for clarity, it’s whether the California Supreme Court agrees with his legal argument that “Proposition 8 is still good law.”
Bradley,
The U.S. Supreme Court has said Prop 8 is not good law. This makes the California Supreme Court irrelevant.
Dronenburg is citing statute that applies when a State Court rules that a law violates the California Constitution. If that were the case, he may have had a valid claim that a State Appellate Court would have to confirm the ruling. In this case, however, the lower court was a federal court (not a state court) and it ruled that Prop 8 violated the U.S. Constitution (not the California Constitution).
I have to assume that Dronenburg knows the difference between Federal and State courts, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is just being played by the FoC Defense Fund.
HQ,
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that supporters of Prop. 8 had no standing to sue. It did not rule on whether it was good law. Once lack of standing was decided, there was nothing to rule on.
Here’s a link to some of the excerpts from the decision via Scotusblog
This sums it up:
“We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.”
Bradley,
I know that. Re-read my comments. The lower court ruled that Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution, the key part of that being “U.S.” The Supreme Court (again U.S.) ruled the appeal of that ruling out of order letting the lower court ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional (again, U.S. Constitution) stand. The California Supreme Court has no say because the ruling wasn’t based on the California Constitution. I don’t believe this is all that complicated and I am sure if this was a case where a local gun control law was thrown out by a lower federal court because it violated the U.S. Constitution, you wouldn’t be having any trouble with the concept.
HQ,
You wrote:
“The U.S. Supreme Court has said Prop 8 is not good law.”
It made no such ruling. You were wrong. You do not gain credibility by pretending otherwise.
“This may lower Dronenburg’s total vote from 78% to 76.8%.”
No, his usage of county office to not only wade into a highly political issue, but in the *opposite* direction of popular opinion, therefore flirting with the possibility of violating the civil rights of his LGBT constituents, will ensure that his previous election victory of 51% to 48% will turn into an election loss of at least 49.8% (a 1.2% drop in support) but more likely a landslide for his opponent.
Not only that, but the wide coverage his actions will get will only further paint the state Republican party as obsessively concerned with ensuring that LGBT American, their families, their children stay second class citizens.
Bradley,
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the lower court ruling stands. By definition this makes Prop 8 bad law. I stand by that statement.
Tony Krvaric said “I appreciate County Clerk Ernie Dronenburg for asking the courts to clarify how come at least a dozen states have voted for traditional marriage and their votes count while our Prop. 8 vote doesn’t count…..”
Oh, please, Mr. Krvaic, we weren’t born yesterday. If Mr. Dronenburg had questions about the law all he had to do was consult with County Council, which I’m sure is just down the hall or simply a phone call away.
According to the UT, one of his questions was “whether county clerks, who are elected by voters, have independent authority or are governed by state officials. If the county clerks are autonomous, they presumably would be able to decide on their own whether to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.”
Comon, even you have to agree this one’s a whopper.
HQ
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the lower court ruling stands. By definition this makes Prop 8 bad law. I stand by that statement.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that defenders of Prop. 8 did not have legal standing to appeal. That is not the same thing as making Prop. 8 bad law, as I’ll explain. But first, let’s look at how your claim, while still wrong, has mutated.
You originally said, “The U.S. Supreme Court has said Prop 8 is not good law,”. Anyone with a good understanding of the case knows this is false, as has been clear from the various reports by journalists and legal scholars.
Moreover, I provided a direct quote from the decision, linking to the respected SCOTUSBlog.
You provided nothing but your own opinion.
Your modified statement, “By definition, this makes Prop. 8 bad law,” is also incorrect. By definition, declining to hear a case means that the lower court decision stands, whatever that might be. In this particular case, the lower court ruled that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional; so that decision stands. In this part you were correct. But not by definition.
More importantly, and here’s where the concept legal concept of standing comes in, the Supreme Court made no decision as to the constitutionality of Prop. 8 itself, or similar anti-SSM laws. It dismissed the appeal on technical grounds, that is, the lack of standing.
The concept of standing is that a party to a case must have some direct interest in the issue. In the case of the state attorney general, for example, that official has the duty of law enforcement. In the case of a private party, some financial or regulatory burden provides that standing, as well as a sentence imposed in a criminal case or fine in a civil case.
The Supreme Court said that the defenders of Prop. 8 lacked any such status. They are not public officials, nor are they directly affected by the case. As the decision said:
“We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.”
So while the lower court decision stands for Prop. 8, it only applies in California. There is no legal precedent at Supreme Court, which ducked a chance to make a ruling on the merits. In addition, the lower court’s decision was written to apply only to California. Hence, laws against SSM in other states remain constitutional, except in California.
Admittedly, this is a bizarre state of affairs. Logically, if a law against SSM is unconstitutional in California, it should be unconstitutional in other states. Conversely, if laws against SSM are constitutional in other states, they should be constitutional in California.
The only way to resolve this issue is for the Supreme Court to make a ruling on the constitutionality of SSM bans. It has not done so here.
Bradley J. Fikes said: “Admittedly, this is a bizarre state of affairs. Logically, if a law against SSM is unconstitutional in California, it should be unconstitutional in other states. Conversely, if laws against SSM are constitutional in other states, they should be constitutional in California….”
?
Not sure of your point here. There are all kinds of laws in different states that would be unconstitutional in other states
And what is Mr. Dronenburg’s standing? Is that he is “suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury and damage.”? Oh, please.
Bradley,
I already knew everything you wrote, but thanks for the refresher, even though it is irrelevant to the discussion concerning Dronenburg’s actions.
I am sure you are aware that is actually a small minority of cases appealed to the U.S. Supreme that result in a wide precedent-setting decision. The vast majority of appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court are either not heard or are denied on any one of a myriad of technical grounds. In all of these cases, the lower court ruling stands. In this case, that makes Prop 8 invalid in California.
Is the decision precedent setting for other states? Of course not, but we weren’t talking about other states, were we?
As for my position morphing, actually it has been quite consistent. The U.S. Supreme Court has said (call it a technicality, if you wish) that Prop 8 is invalid and the U.S. Supreme Court trumps anything any California Court, local County Assessor or 501 C-whatever says otherwise.
I do agree that it would be helpful to get a ruling by the United States Supreme Court on the constitutionality of SSM bans in other states, but that is also irrelevant to this discussion.
HQ,
You just made another whopper:
“The U.S. Supreme Court has said (call it a technicality, if you wish) that Prop 8 is invalid and the U.S. Supreme Court trumps anything any California Court, local County Assessor or 501 C-whatever says otherwise.”
Wrong again. The Supreme Court made no ruling on the validity of Prop. 8. It said the defenders had no legal standing to argue their claim. The validity of the initiative never came up.
If you still wish to claim your statement is correct, please give a cite from the decision that backs up your interpretation.
bill@the county,
I’m afraid you’ll just have to reread my comments until you correct your misunderstanding of what I wrote about standing, which had nothing to do with Dronenburg. Ditto about constitutionality.
Not understanding why someone would say, “I already knew everything you wrote,” while continuing to mistate a fact.
Bradley,
Read the paragraph immediately below the one you keep quoting. It ends with “The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It is so ordered.” Did you perhaps leave out that part intentionally?
When an appeal is ordered to be dismissed, the lower court ruling takes effect. By definition, Prop 8 is no longer valid.
Greg,
Yeah, I found that odd as well. “Everything” includes my statements that HQ doesn’t understand what the U.S. Supreme Court did.
If HQ has trouble finding the actual decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, it’s right at this link: http://j.mp/holperry
For those actually interested in exploring the context of the decision and other SSM decisions, I’ll once again plug SCOTUSblog, which provides timely and informative discussions and articles on Supreme Court rulings. The link goes to an article on the latest Proposition 8 filings, including Dronenburg’s.
And here’s a link to other SCOTUSblog posts on SSM.
HQ:
“The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It is so ordered.
Congratulations on actually quoting from the text. Too bad you still don’t know what it says. Let’s go over this again.The appeal was dismissed “for lack of jurisdiction,” not because Proposition 8 was invalid.
The finding that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional is a finding of the lower court, not the Supreme Court,as you inaccurately claimed.
Still wrong!
First you neglect to include what the decision actually ordered and then when I point this fact out, my comment is relegated to “older comments.” Frankly, I have better things to do on a Sunday. Enjoy your day.
“When an appeal is ordered to be dismissed, the lower court ruling takes effect. By definition, Prop 8 is no longer valid.” Bradley isn’t arguing anything differently than that. He is noting that by dismissing the appeal, the SC did not weigh in on the merits. The court did not. Fact. It would help if commenters would stop reacting to what they assume others believe about SSM. Bradley supports it, we believe. Can we move on now?
HQ,
Since you keep confusing a ruling on lack of jurisdiction with a ruling on the merits of the case, yes, you should do something else.
Happy Sunday!
The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court ruling stands and, as you admit, the lower court ruling said that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Spin it any way you want, but it still means that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
Guess what? Most voters don’t care, one way or the other, about SSM and they still won’t when Dronenburg’s re-election comes up.
An inconvenient fact: Dick Cheney supported same sex marriage 8 years before Barack Obama did.
Another inconvenient fact: conservative Christians overwhelmingly voted for Cheney in 2004 (when his position was for SSM) and liberal Democrats overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama in 2008. (when his position was against SSM)
Gin up the theocracy comments all you want but, at the end of the day, the Assessor/Recorder position is about property valuation, tax bills, and registering trade names. You’ll be hard pressed to find a better run county office than Ernie’s.
HQ, now we have no idea WTH you’re talking about. There is no “older comments” section. Comments may go into the moderation or spam check queue — and we try to approve them as quickly as possible — but they go up in order according to the time they are posted by the commenters. Yours included, the most current showing to the right as recent comments.
TA,
I personally am glad that Prop. 8 was struck down, but would have preferred it to be done by another initiative. The method used sets a dangerous precedent, if state officials can simply ignore laws they don’t like, and the public has no recourse.
I also understand that my own personal beliefs have nothing to do with the facts of the litigation. As Mark Twain supposedly said, first get the facts, then distort ’em any way you want.
But folks like HQ reason backward from what they want to be true to find the “facts” that support their beliefs. In HQ’s mind, it is a “fact” that the Supreme Court decided that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, no matter what the facts really are.
HQ is right … in that there is an “older comments” thing. The site is also acting weird this morning. Comments keep appearing and disappearing.
HQ:
Spin it any way you want, but it still means that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
There’s no “spin,” just your continued inaccurate understanding of the case. The lower court ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional. The Supreme Court did not.
Ok, we see that when many comments get posted, prior comments go onto an older page. They still go up based on the PST time they are posted. We’ll see if an adjustment can be made to keep all the comments on one page. Implications that any of this is purposeful, to relegate some comments to secondary class, are bullshit. Yeah, we have that much time on our hands.
Please move on.
“I personally am glad that Prop. 8 was struck down, but would have preferred it to be done by another initiative.”
Same here. I hate the initiative process but, in my eyes, the best way to rescind, what I considered to be bad law (Prop 8) is the same process.
BB,
Since society is moving toward greater acceptance of SSM, in California and elsewhere, an outright repeal of Prop. 8 by voters would have been highly likely. And that would have left Prop. 8 supporters without a legal leg to stand on.
Please let us know if the comments now show on one page.
TA,
They show on one page for me. Thanks to you and the rest of the hard-working crew at SDRostra!
BTW, I love your capcha system. Far better than those squiggles and hieroglyphs other sites use.
“Guess what? Most voters don’t care, one way or the other, about SSM and they still won’t when Dronenburg’s re-election comes up.”
Even if that was true, “most voters” wouldn’t need to change their mind to hand Dronenburg a loss, only around 2% would need to change their minds given his win by less than 3%. The fact that his assault on marriage rights for same-sex couples is making national news is going to draw attention, and the voters that do care (that younger generation that supports same-sex marriage by over 70%, LGBT voters and their allies, and moderate voters) would need to only lift a finger to check the box for Dronenburg’s opponent.
“Another inconvenient fact: conservative Christians overwhelmingly voted for Cheney in 2004 (when his position was for SSM) and liberal Democrats overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama in 2008. (when his position was against SSM)”
The Presidential nominee on the Republican ticket in 2004 was actively calling for an Amendment to write discrimination into our U.S. Constitution and institutionalize the oppression of LGBT Americans. Meanwhile, the President on the Democratic ticket in 2008 vocally opposed that same amendment and said he would repeal DOMA. If the issue is so inconsequential, why are social conservatives that make up the base constantly threatening the party and forcing anti-gay language into the Republican platform? Why isn’t the Republican party listening to the calls of many of the moderates to embrace marriage equality as a conservative issue? Certainly, if voters will vote for them regardless, why not rip out the parts of their platform which are rooted in animus against LGBT people?
“the Assessor/Recorder position is about property valuation, tax bills, and registering trade names.”
And this issue wouldn’t be flaring up if Dronenburg would stick to those responsibilities, rather than taking action in opposition of popular opinion. Even I was pleasantly surprised that Dronenburg took a rather moderate position after he ran as the Tea Party candidate. The thing is, his actions which are a threat to the civil rights of same-sex couples, their children and their families as a whole is far from moderate, it’s radical. Not only are people highly underestimating the volatility of his actions, but I believe it has the potential to spill into other races and back Republicans into a corner where they have to answer questions and take a firm stance on an issue that will make it impossible for them to build a coalition between moderates and social conservatives, which will lead to election losses.
“Gay” is parent-caused, preventable, and treatable.
The whole gay-equality cause is Leftist nonsense.
The real info is at http://www.narth.com.
GayScam will end, maybe as soon as 2016. The people will end it, in any case.