California | Gay Marriage | Gay Rights | Kamala Harris | News | Proposition 8 | San Diego

CA Attorney General Urges Court To Deny San Diego Clerk's Petition To Halt Same-Sex Marriages: READ


Late last week, San Diego County Clerk Ernest J. Dronenburg Jr. filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to halt same-sex marriages in the state on the grounds that the 2010 federal court ruling by District Judge Vaugh Walker only applies to the two couples who petitioned the court and their respective counties (Los Angeles and Alameda). On Monday, California Attorney General Kamala Harris strongly urged the court to deny the request for a stay, according to the LA Times:

“The public interest weighs sharply against issuing a stay in this case,” Harris’ office argued. “After years of litigation, there is now a final determination that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

Responding to Dronenburg's notion that a more limited view of Walker's ruling should be applied, "Harris countered that [Walker's] injunction applied statewide because it also ordered [Governor] Brown and other statewide officials to stop enforcing Proposition 8, and those officials have authority over county clerks."

In briefs filed with the Court, Harris went even further in arguing against the requested stay of same-sex marriages:

"The Court should deny the stay because the petitioner has no likelihood of success on the merits. The petition is an impermissible collateral attack on the district court's final judgment. This Court is not the proper forum to litigate the scope or validity of the district court's injunction, as that question is properly presented to the federal district court. The federal injunction applies statewide, and the State Registrar's notices to the petitioner of his legal obligations under the terms of a federal injunction do not violate article III, section 3.5 of the California Constitution. Even if successful, the requested stay would not shield petitioner from proceedings to compel his compliance with the federal injunction."

Dronenburg's petition is the second in California to challenge same-sex marriage in California since the Supreme Court overturned Prop. 8 on a question of standing in June. Last week a request from the backers of Prop. 8 to halt gay marriages was denied by the California Supreme Court.

Read Harris' opposition to the stay AFTER THE JUMP...





Dronenburg v. Brown (Prop 8) Opposition to Stay by EqualityCaseFiles

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Hmmm... if you don't want to follow the law and do your job, why are you still employed there?

    Posted by: Rad | Jul 23, 2013 11:49:13 AM

  2. I must say that it makes me nervous.

    It seems like they are going to try until they are successful. And if they manage to stop same sex wedding in CA! then they are "taking away rights" (again). Chaos. I hope the court makes it fast and clearly that the right to marry is here to stay in CA

    Posted by: nn | Jul 23, 2013 11:50:23 AM

  3. They will keep trying, but there is no feasible pathway to success for them. Just sit back and enjoy the spectacle of the Neanderthals losing again and again.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jul 23, 2013 11:58:26 AM

  4. @ERNIE
    I hope you are right:)

    Posted by: nn | Jul 23, 2013 12:06:24 PM

  5. Enuf already....stop wasting our time, and taxpayer $. follow the law of the land!

    Posted by: mymy | Jul 23, 2013 12:08:48 PM

  6. I think there were plenty of unbiased legal scholars who questioned whether Judge Walker's opinion applied statewide. Advocates for banning gay marriage have just managed to find a clerk willing to go along with a suit to test that legal theory.

    If, for some reason, Prop 8 were upheld as to all other couples (unlikely), California just needs to put it back on a ballot and get rid of it for good.

    Posted by: Fancy | Jul 23, 2013 1:11:43 PM

  7. Its OK dumb ass Dronenburg, no one is going to force you to marry a man - though maybe you'd like to.

    Posted by: John Freeman | Jul 23, 2013 1:12:04 PM

  8. San Diego, a wonderful place to give up.

    Posted by: Fenrox | Jul 23, 2013 1:13:07 PM

  9. Can we petition the court to fire this guy for wasting taxpayer money?

    Posted by: John in Houston | Jul 23, 2013 2:06:20 PM

  10. If the two couples who were plaintiffs in the defeat of H8 were the only people in California who had the benefits of the Equal Rights provision of the 14th amendment and the Due Process protections of the 5th amendment, then the San Diego bigot for Jesus might have a points.

    In fact the Constitution applies to all, we all have the same rights, and Mr Dronenburg has racked up another loss.

    I point at this man and yell Ha Ha.

    Posted by: Stephen Rider | Jul 23, 2013 4:23:38 PM

  11. Kamala Harris just tweeted: "The CA Supreme Court has denied the San Diego County Clerk’s request to halt same-sex marriages. #Prop8"

    Posted by: Larry | Jul 23, 2013 7:59:35 PM

  12. What I'd like to know is, who paid for Dronenburg's futile exercise in bureaucratic wheelspinning? Did us taxpayers of San Diego County pick up the tab?

    Posted by: Beekeeper | Jul 24, 2013 3:36:37 AM

  13. What I'd like to know is, who paid for Dronenburg's futile exercise in bureaucratic wheelspinning? Did us taxpayers of San Diego County pick up the tab?

    Posted by: Beekeeper | Jul 24, 2013 3:36:37 AM

  14. Prop 8 did not effect the defendants in some unanticipated way, it worked as designed. When it was invalidated, it was because it conflicted with the constitution. Does this guy think that every couple wanting to get married needs to go to court?a

    Posted by: Armando | Jul 24, 2013 7:16:06 AM

Post a comment


« «Kelly Rowland Airs Her 'Dirty Laundry': VIDEO« «