For Prop 8 only

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Prop-8-backers-ask-court-to-stop-weddings-4662269.php

Prop. 8 backers ask court to stop weddings
Bob Egelko
Updated 7:49 pm, Friday, July 12, 2013

After being turned away by the U.S. Supreme Court, sponsors of California's ban on same-sex marriage turned to the state's high court Friday, asking for a halt to the weddings that started two weeks ago and a ruling that Proposition 8 is still legally binding.

Gov. Jerry Brown lacked authority to order all 58 county clerks to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples because he relied on a ruling that granted marital rights to only two couples, lawyers for the proponents of the 2008 ballot measure argued in a new lawsuit in the state Supreme Court.

"Executive officials have attacked, failed to enforce and undermined state laws affirming traditional marriage," said attorneys with Protect Marriage, which sponsored Prop. 8, and Alliance Defending Freedom, another conservative Christian organization.

They said the only source of Brown's order was a 2010 ruling by a federal judge who, they argued, had no power to block the statewide enforcement of a voter-approved initiative or to control the local clerks who issue marriage licenses.

The suit seeks an immediate statewide ban on same-sex marriages and a ruling that Prop. 8 is still the law in California. The filing said marriages already performed are of "uncertain validity," but it does not seek a court order invalidating them.

The state court indicated it would act quickly on the request for an immediate stay, asking for a response from the state by Friday evening and a reply from Prop. 8's supporters by Monday morning. The justices also ordered expedited briefing on the validity of Prop. 8, with written arguments due by Aug. 1.

Lawyers for the two couples who sued in federal court for the right to marry, and for the city of San Francisco, which joined the suit, said the attempt to revive Prop. 8 was doomed.

This "effort to stop loving couples from marrying in California is a baseless and frivolous act," said Theodore Olson, lawyer for the two couples.

He said any county that refuses to marry gays and lesbians would be subject to contempt of court and damages for defying a federal court injunction.

"Marriage equality is now the law in the state of California," said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera. He said Prop. 8's sponsors were ignoring "the most basic concepts of American law ... that a state court will not overrule the federal judiciary."

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 26 that Prop. 8's sponsors lacked legal standing to represent the state and its voters in defense of the measure, after Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris declined to do so.

The ruling did not address Prop. 8's constitutionality, but reinstated then-Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's August 2010 decision that the initiative discriminated on the basis of gender and sexual orientation. Walker barred enforcement of Prop. 8 by state officials and all those under their control.

On June 28, after a federal appeals court lifted an injunction that had prevented Walker's ruling from taking effect, Brown - relying on legal advice from Harris that Prop. 8 was no longer in effect - ordered all county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Among the first to wed were the plaintiffs, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier of Berkeley and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo of Burbank.

Prop. 8's sponsors immediately and unsuccessfully sought an emergency stay from the nation's high court. In Friday's state court filing, they argued that because the two couples' suit was not a class action, Walker's ruling applied only to those couples.

Brown's statewide order was unauthorized, the pro-Prop. 8 lawyers said, because California law "has designated county clerks as the only government officials with authority to issue marriage licenses" and has not authorized state officials to oversee or control their actions.

"And in a moment the result of that case."

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-court-gay-marriage-20130715,0,4559972.story

Prop. 8: California Supreme Court refuses to stop gay weddings

By Maura Dolan
July 15, 2013, 2:27 p.m.

The California Supreme Court refused Monday to stop gays from marrying while it considers a legal bid to revive Proposition 8.

The court rejected a request by ProtectMarriage, the sponsors of the 2008 ballot measure, to stop the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples while considering the group’s contention that a federal judge’s injunction against the marriage ban did not apply statewide.

The court is not expected to rule on the group’s petition until August, at the earliest.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided last month that ProtectMarriage lacked the legal right to appeal a 2010 injunction against Proposition 8 issued by a federal trial judge in San Francisco.

Gov. Jerry Brown said the injunction compelled him to order county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But ProtectMarriage insists the injunction applies only to two counties at most and that Brown erred when he ordered clerks to stop enforcing the marriage ban.

State Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, whose office represents Brown, has contended that ProtectMarriage is asking the state court to interfere with a federal court order in violation of the constitution.

---

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_23648882/gay-marriage-foes-try-again-revive-californias-proposition wrote:

Gay marriage foes try again to revive California's Proposition 8
By Howard Mintz

Posted: 07/12/2013 10:23:36 AM PDT
Updated: 07/12/2013 02:00:55 PM PDT

Proposition 8 backers on Friday tried one last legal maneuver to revive California's gay marriage ban, asking the state Supreme Court to halt the same-sex nuptials taking place across the state since the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to doom the law in a ruling last month.

Alliance Defending Freedom, an Arizona-based group behind Proposition 8, filed a petition with the state's high court, urging the justices to order county clerks to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and abide by the 2008 voter-approved ban.

The group argues that the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, leaving issues yet to be resolved by the courts before same-sex marriages can resume.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera called it a "desperate obstruction tactic" that he would oppose in the state Supreme Court.

The court, in addition to deciding whether to accept the case, must also address an Proposition 8 supporters' emergency request to immediately halt marriage licenses while the legal challenge unfolds.

The Alliance's legal gambit appears to be a long shot. The U.S. Supreme Court and a federal appeals court already have rejected attempts to put a stop to the marriages, and the state Supreme Court would have to cut against those decisions.

The U.S. Supreme Court in June found that Proposition 8 supporters never had the legal right to defend the law in lieu of the governor and
attorney general, who consider it unconstitutional. As a result, the case returned to a federal judge's 2010 ruling striking down Proposition 8 because he found it violated the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

Proposition 8 backers maintain that ruling only applied to the two couples who sued to overturn the law, and it did not have statewide effect. But gay marriage advocates have succeeded in scrapping the law since the Supreme Court ruled, and thousands of couples throughout California have married.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/24/california-court-rejects-bid-to-stop-gay-marriages/ wrote:

California court rejects bid to halt gay marriages in state
Published July 24, 2013
Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO – 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.

County clerk Ernest Dronenburg Jr. sought the stay on Friday. He also asked the seven-member court to consider his legal argument that same-sex marriages still are illegal in most of California, despite a U.S. Supreme Court decision widely regarded as having authorized them and the state attorney general's assertion that clerks throughout the state must issue licenses to gay couples.

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marriages to return to the nation's most populous state last month when it ruled that the sponsors of Proposition 8 lacked authority to appeal a federal trial judge's decision that the ban violated the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian Californians.

Dronenburg claims that the trial court's companion directive ordering the governor, attorney general and state public health director to cease enforcing Proposition 8 applies only to the two couples who sued to overturn the ban, and to the clerks in Alameda and Los Angeles counties, where the couples applied for marriage licenses.

Dronenburg, a Republican who was elected as San Diego County's assessor-recorder-clerk in 2010 and who has been known chiefly for his views on tax issues, also argues that county clerks aren't bound by orders from the governor, the state attorney general and the state officials who oversee marriage records.

He is being represented by Rancho Santa Fe lawyer Charles LiMandri, who donated $10,000 and loaned another $27,000 to the campaigns to qualify and pass Proposition 8, according to state campaign finance records.

The state high court has asked for more written arguments on those issues by Aug. 8.

The court last week rejected a similar request for a temporary hold on same-sex marriages from the sponsors of Proposition 8, who have made arguments similar to Dronenburg's about the scope of the trial court's injunction. Lawyers for Proposition 8's backers also have argued that because the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule directly on the measure's constitutionality, state officials are bound by state law to enforce it.

The California Supreme Court must decide if it will take up their case and has asked for additional written arguments by Aug. 1. So far, clerks in 24 counties have submitted briefs arguing that it makes sense for their actions with regard to issuing marriage licenses to be guided by state officials so marriage laws are the same statewide.

---

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/san-diego-clerk-withdraws-bid-revive-prop-19863889 wrote:

San Diego Clerk Withdraws Bid to Revive Prop. 8
SAN DIEGO August 4, 2013 (AP)

San Diego's county clerk, the man charged with issuing marriage licenses there and the most prominent public figure to move against gay marriage in California since its recent resumption, has withdrawn a legal bid to stop the practice, saying he was ceding the fight to a group that already has a similar challenge pending.

Ernest Dronenburg Jr. said in a statement Saturday that he was withdrawing his request for the state Supreme Court to halt gay weddings because the sponsors of a 2008 ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage have filed a similar petition.

The state's high court had rejected the clerk's request for a stay stopping gay marriages in California while they considered his petition.

Dronenburg had argued that county clerks could decide independently whether to issue marriage licenses to a couple.

"County clerks carry out their duties, including the issuances of marriage licenses, without supervision or control of the governor or attorney general," Dronenburg wrote in his petition. "Indeed, no statute requires county clerks to report to the governor or attorney general."

He also argued that gay marriage was only legal in Alameda and Los Angeles counties, where the couples who challenged the ban had been married.

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marriages to return to the nation's most populous state in June when it ruled that the sponsors of Proposition 8 lacked authority to appeal a federal trial judge's decision that the ban violated the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian Californians.

Those sponsors, who make up the organization ProtectMarriage, filed the petition that prompted Dronenberg's withdrawal.

Dronenburg, a Republican who was elected as San Diego County's assessor-recorder-clerk in 2010, had been chiefly known previously for his views on tax issues.

---

Gary, such strange politics you have in Cal. The conservatives feel regulating the bed room is more important than figuring out the prison population problem or the states education system

---

Gary, such strange politics you have in Cal. The conservatives feel regulating the bed room is more important than figuring out the prison population problem or the states education system

Well, please understand Prop 8 was entirely funded by out of state interests and conservative isn't really the right label for religious zealots.

---

conservative isn't really the right label for religious zealots.

Well they are not progressives.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/14/california-supreme-court-rejects-appeal-from-prop-8-sponsors-to-stop-gay/

California Supreme Court rejects appeal from Prop 8 sponsors to stop gay marriages
Published August 14, 2013
Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court refused Wednesday to stop gay marriages in the state.

In a brief ruling, the high court unanimously tossed out a legal challenge by supporters of Proposition 8, the ballot measure passed by voters that banned same-sex marriages in California.

In June, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling left in place a trial judge's 2010 order striking down the ballot measure as unconstitutional. On June 28, Gov. Jerry Brown ordered county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Prop 8 supporters had asked the state Supreme Court to stop the weddings, arguing that the federal court action applied narrowly and only to the two couples who filed the federal lawsuit challenging the ban.

San Diego County clerk Ernest Dronenburg Jr. also had filed an appeal to the state high court to halt gay weddings but withdrew it earlier this month, saying his challenge was too similar to that of the Prop 8 backers to merit a separate legal bid.

With little comment, a unanimous state Supreme Court allowed gay marriages to continue. The state Supreme Court didn't address the legal arguments of Prop 8 supporters, leaving open the possibility they may take their case back to federal court.

A spokeswoman for the supporters didn't immediately return a phone call or email inquiry.

Backers of Prop 8, which passed in 2008, argue that the lawsuit permits only county clerks in Alameda and Los Angeles counties from issuing same-sex wedding licenses since the lawsuit filed by the two couple residing in those counties wasn't filed as a class action lawsuit on behalf of all gay couple wishing to be married in California.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker previously issued a sweeping opinion saying Prop 8 violated equal protection guarantees in the U.S. Constitution by denying the two California couples a chance to marry in the state.

Looks like we have another state solidly in the gay marriage column.

The order: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Prop.-8-CA-SCt-denies-mandate-8-14-13.pdf
Note, there is no dissent, unanimous.

---