Connect With Us


Another Attempt Made To Stop Marriage Equality In California

Marriage Equality (Rings)

Marriage Equality (Rings)

At what point does the anti-gay groups and people finally admit defeat? San Diego County clerk Ernest Dronenburg has petitioned the California Supreme Court for an immediate stay on same-sex marriages. According to Dronenburg, the marriages should not be allowed due to the fact that he, himself, is somehow injured by them going forth.

This is the second time that the California Supreme Court has been petitioned in order to try and get the marriages stopped.

According to CBS:

Dronenburg’s petition argues that his plea for a stay is different [from the other petition] because he is directly affected by state Registrar Tony Agurto’s June 28 order to the 58 county clerks to license gay marriages.

The San Diego County clerk said he is in a “legal limbo” because he believes the licenses should not be issued, but state Attorney General Kamala Harris has threatened to take action against clerks who refuse to allow the nuptials.

Dronenburg argues in his petition that “Navigating this landmine of uncertainty on a daily basis is an ongoing and ever-present injury.”

Harris dismissed Dronenburg’s claims saying that “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.

The California Supreme Court has already refused one request for a stay out of Protect Marriage. Both they and Droneneburg claim that Prop 8 is still in effect because the United States Supreme Court did not issue a ruling saying that it was unconstitutional despite the fact that SCOTUS made it clear that the ruling by Judge Vaughn Walker was the only ruling that was considered to be valid.

In that ruling, Walker made it clear that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. The language he used was unequivocal and clear. In his ruling, Walker wrote “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

It is unlikely that the California Supreme Court is going to uphold either the petitions from Dronenburg or from Protect Marriage as they have said that the cases should be pursued in the Federal Courts. Unfortunately for both Dronenburg and Protect Marriage, neither would be considered to be an injured party and the US Supreme Court made it clear already that they have no standing to sue or appeal in the case.

Simply put, they have no standing under the law.



Share This Post