Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Diego
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-23-2013, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Sandy Eggo - Kensington
5,291 posts, read 12,737,271 times
Reputation: 3194

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AADAD View Post
Actually it does sound like he just wanted clarification as his office continued to issue licenses. Sounds ok?
Do you think someone needed clarification when women were first allowed to vote back in 1920? Seems pretty clear to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-24-2013, 01:27 PM
 
2,836 posts, read 3,495,359 times
Reputation: 1406
The San Diego County Recorder’s petition to the California Supreme Court for a writ of mandate will be denied. Proposition 8 was a state-wide initiative that has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The court ruled: "Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8." Perry v. Schwartzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d (ND Cal. 2010). County administrative officials act only as agents for the state in the issuance of marriage licenses; and do not exercise independent authority. The order of the District Court permanently enjoined the enforcement of Proposition 8; and, therefore, the licenses to same-sex partners shall be issued.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2013, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Santaluz - San Diego, CA
4,498 posts, read 9,382,682 times
Reputation: 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurbanite View Post
And what if there had been a public vote on school integration, the right for women to vote, hold office or serve in the military, interracial marriage or slavery? Don't you think all of those would have lost back in the day? Basic human rights should never be voted on.

AMEN.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2013, 07:15 PM
 
Location: Lyon, France, Whidbey Island WA
20,834 posts, read 17,098,118 times
Reputation: 11535
Just the messenger. Someone close to me knows the man. Say's he is a decent guy. For that reason want to take him at his word. He continued to issues licenses. It is his job to be cautious. I chose to cut him some slack.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2013, 07:21 PM
 
Location: Where they serve real ale.
7,242 posts, read 7,905,875 times
Reputation: 3497
Quote:
Originally Posted by AADAD View Post
The clerk of San Diego is entitled to his personal viewpoint just like any one.
He's not entitled to break state law because of his personal bigotry and hatred. That is exactly why the courts ***** slapped him across the face.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2013, 07:39 PM
 
Location: New York City/San Diego, CA
686 posts, read 1,137,962 times
Reputation: 1107
He did not do this because he was concerned about gay couples and their marriages being invalidated. He knows what the Court said and the views of Kamela Harris and Jerry Brown. Gay marriage is here to stay. If you read the brief, he says gay marriage violates his own personal convictions.

Personally, I think he did it to garner favor with the conservatives in the county. This coming from a politician who ran election ads in LGBT publications. Talk about two faced but what else is new in politics?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2013, 08:55 PM
 
745 posts, read 1,568,068 times
Reputation: 331
Gay couples were getting married immediately in Sacramento while San Diego was turning people seeking license appointments away saying they were awaiting direction from Mr. Dronenburg who was out of town when the decision came down. I figured he was "out of town" at this time on purpose, to delay making appointments to issues licenses as long as he could.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2013, 07:47 AM
 
2,836 posts, read 3,495,359 times
Reputation: 1406
Mr. Dronenburg did not have authority to file the petition for writ of mandate; which was filed without the knowledge of the Office of the County Counsel of San Diego. He, and his private lawyer, stand to be sanctioned for filing this frivolous action.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2013, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Santaluz - San Diego, CA
4,498 posts, read 9,382,682 times
Reputation: 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfosyd View Post
He did not do this because he was concerned about gay couples and their marriages being invalidated. He knows what the Court said and the views of Kamela Harris and Jerry Brown. Gay marriage is here to stay. If you read the brief, he says gay marriage violates his own personal convictions.

Personally, I think he did it to garner favor with the conservatives in the county. This coming from a politician who ran election ads in LGBT publications. Talk about two faced but what else is new in politics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips View Post
Mr. Dronenburg did not have authority to file the petition for writ of mandate; which was filed without the knowledge of the Office of the County Counsel of San Diego. He, and his private lawyer, stand to be sanctioned for filing this frivolous action.

This "rogue employee" should be terminated ASAP, IMHO. It's clear that he was acting independently. And I don't care if he is a "decent guy" according to someone that might know him. I'm sure Hitler probably had people that said he was a "decent guy" as well. For that matter, Filner as well.

People like this really shouldn't be in public office as far as I'm concerned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2013, 11:40 AM
 
Location: San Diego
50,262 posts, read 47,023,439 times
Reputation: 34060
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurbanite View Post
And what if there had been a public vote on school integration, the right for women to vote, hold office or serve in the military, interracial marriage or slavery? Don't you think all of those would have lost back in the day? Basic human rights should never be voted on.
This I agree with. EVERY one should be sent to Court vs wasting voters time voting on something that's going to end up there anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Diego
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top