Kern County Clerk to Stop Performing Marriages

Having had a little think about this, I'm not so sure that the Clerk in question didn't do the right thing. As I understand it, County Clerks are not required to perform marriage ceremonys, they choose to ... is this correct?

First of all, let's be clear that we are assuming that she objects to same-sex marriage. I think it's a fair assumption, but it's not completely certain. Anyway, with that assumption noted...

She has an objection to same-sex marriage and so instead of refusing to marry same-sex couples (which would be discrimination) she decides to no longer perform marriages ceremonys at all - she treats everybody the same way.

Let me be clear, I don't think she's right in her oppostion to same-sex marriages, I think that she's dead wrong, but she's entitled to be wrong and keep working as long as she doesn't discriminate. Surely what she has done isn't descriminatory? It's may be pretty stupid and petty, but she's not treated same-sex couples any differently than mixed-sex couples. Her reasons for doing so may be objectionable, but that's a different argument.
 
Worm said:
Having had a little think about this, I'm not so sure that the Clerk in question didn't do the right thing.
Click to expand...

I'll concede that she stayed within the bounds of her legal rights, in fact she sought legal counsel in advance of taking action.

But this woman is an elected official being paid by the citizens of Kern County. By refusing to continue providing a service which the county traditionally has provided, she is not doing a very good job of serving the citizens.

It is also noteworthy that, although some may claim that she is acting on the basis of her convictions, she lacks the courage to name those convictions in public. The stated reason for discontinuing civil ceremonies is obviously not her actual reason, as most people concerned about office space do not consult right wing Fundamentalist legal organizations that exist primarily to harass gay and lesbian citizens.

When a person lacks honesty, and demonstrates this in public, then their motives and intentions become suspect.

If this lady has so much internalized bigotry that it interferes with her ability to serve the citizens of Kern County, perhaps the honorable thing to do would be to seek employment elsewhere. But then perhaps it is unreasonable to expect a person acting for reasons based on religious delusions to be honorable or even honest.
 
I think it's a good point about her stated reasons for actions. As a local government employee, I am constantly facing the culture of not really saying what you think for fear of what the public's reaction will be. The 'political' curse as I think of it. It's really just dishonesty.

She may actually have shot herself in the foot a little, as her excuses of lack of space and staff may well turn out to be completely misplaced.

I also note from the article in the OP that she "tried to resign her elected position as county clerk — while keeping her positions as auditor-controller and elections boss". I'm not quite clear what that means, but it does sound a bit like she was trying to do the right thing in some way.
 
RadioactiveMan said:
The ritual of an event celebrating the official pair bonding of two persons is a religious institution that long predates anything resembling a government. I see no reason why the government needs to be involved in private, intimate, interpersonal relationships.
Click to expand...

So should we not let people you marry have any right to sue for wrongful death or what? Only blood relatives.

There needs to be some method of legal recognition of a relationship, as you can not sue for the wrongful death of a roommate, but can for a spouce.

That is currentlty marriage.
 
Here is one example of what can happen if a couple is married, versus the same couple not being married. The context is California law, as that relates to this thread.

If one spouse in a marriage dies and the couple jointly owned real estate, a very common situation, under California law the transfer of ownership of the real estate from the couple to the surviving spouse is not considered a sale for purposes of taxation.

If two people co-own property but are neither legally married nor registered domestic partners, then the death of one co-owner does not create a tax-free transfer of property.

The implications are huge, because under existing California law the county is not permitted to revaluate a property for tax purposes unless some major change, like a sale or transfer of ownership, has taken place. So if the couple has lived in the home for 20 years, when a surviving partner inherits the property they might see their annual tax rate quadruple or more, possibly at a time in life when their income is very low (old age).

This is just one of the many civil rights that gays and lesbians have access to when their government treats them as having equal rights under the law.

There is no number so small that I could not care less about who any religious organization will or will not marry, since I am fortunate enough not to suffer from religious delusions. The struggle for gay rights is a struggle for legal and financial parity with our fellow citizens. Marriage is a civil matter, this is why marriage licenses are issued by the state instead of the Rat in a Hat.

Apply unto Caesar for the documents that are Caesar's.
 
RadioactiveMan said:
The ritual of an event celebrating the official pair bonding of two persons is a religious institution that long predates anything resembling a government. I see no reason why the government needs to be involved in private, intimate, interpersonal relationships. I like what this clerk is doing, except the whole thing isn't going far enough. The county should get rid of marriage licensing altogether (after all, why the @#&! should I have to ask permission from my neighbors for the "privilege" of entering into a relationship that's none of their fornicating business?) and tell the churches to go nuts and marry whomever they want.

Separation of church and state, you know...
Click to expand...

I disagree with your presumption - marriage has always been societal before it became religious in nature. Who is responsible for raising, funding and handling the misadventures before maturity of the offspring, how they inherit, how to handle the demise of the marriage (whether it is possible short of death, and what happens when it does) - all of these are legal, not religious, questions. Of course, religion has made itself pre-eminent, but the legal, state-interest in marriage cannot be adjudicated by religion, particularly when it is separate from state, as you point out.

I disagree with your desires - making marriage outside the legal is to make all the legal issues somehow just "go away", and they plainly don't. Your neighbors aren't giving you permission - they are saying that if you do it, then you need to know there is more involved than simply having sex with each other (mainly, but not exclusively as a result of said sex), and that you are bound by the consequences of your actions, as with any other legal contract you enter into. The state is so needful of making this contractual decision binding that it even decides what implicit, common-law marriage requires, and ignorance of that law is no excuse when you try to just as informally terminate the relationship.

I do agree that religion is not necessary in marriage. They simply horned into a feel-good time in the human condition where they can attempt to increase their influence. As I stated above, marriage is a contract between the husband and the wife - all others in whatever ceremony takes place are simply witnesses to the contract - no more. Even the canon law of the Catholic church makes that point - the officiating priest has no other role in the ceremony beside that of witness, and as "the channel of god's grace" to the couple, for whatever that's worth.
 
Darat said:
A slight aside: I disagree, from what I've read historically someone wishing to get married has needed the permission of someone else to actually get married so I'd argue the concept of a "licence" is as old as marriage itself.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. The two castaways on The Blue Lagoon had the right of it - they are married if they freely choose to do so. This is upheld by all state law that I know of (see common-law marriage) and by the Catholic church (the only one that I know closely enough to make the statement); reference the Baltimore Catechism on the definition of marriage. Historically there are witnesses to the contract, and the local law often usurps rights to others from what we are used to in English common law (ie, the right of parents to determine the marriage partner, thus making the definition of bride and groom larger than the two individuals involved - indeed, a marriage of families is the proper way to think of that). But permission from any other person beyond the two contracting entities is not usually a necessary legal or religious requirement for marriage.

The "license" is a written form of the contract they are making - and contracts are implicit in the very first legal relationship that any two people ever had - as old as society.
 
Last edited:
NEWS FLASH: Kern County police officials have rescinded their threat that they will arrest known, practicing homosexuals attempting to conduct legally licensed weddings outside the county clerk's office. I am not kidding.
The Rev. Byrd Tetzlaff, minister of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Kern County, told The Chronicle on Tuesday that the police would not allow them to conduct the ceremonies there. On Wednesday, Tetzlaff said it had been a misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the police misunderstood the law?

( link )
 
RadioactiveMan said:
The ritual of an event celebrating the official pair bonding of two persons is a religious institution that long predates anything resembling a government. I see no reason why the government needs to be involved in private, intimate, interpersonal relationships. I like what this clerk is doing, except the whole thing isn't going far enough. The county should get rid of marriage licensing altogether (after all, why the @#&! should I have to ask permission from my neighbors for the "privilege" of entering into a relationship that's none of their fornicating business?) and tell the churches to go nuts and marry whomever they want.

Separation of church and state, you know...
Click to expand...
First, the church does marry anyone, the state does.

Down here is Florida a notary-public can marry two people with a marriage certificate, my Grandniece was just married this way.

A marriage certificate only shows that both people are who they say they are, meet the age requirement and any other requirements the state has for two get married.

After getting a state marriage license they then can get married anywhere in that state by anyone legally allowed to marry them.

And as I said before it is a contract, it is legal and binding. I want no body but my wife and my wife wants nobody but me to make curtain decisions and the marriage certificate shows we have this right. I have many times with my wife called the shots at the hospital, and what I said went because I am her husband. You seem not to understand this importance of a marriage contract.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
I want no body but my wife and my wife wants nobody but me to make curtain decisions and the marriage certificate shows we have this right.
Click to expand...

Bravo. I know I also have strong feelings about who makes curtain decisions in my household. Actually, I prefer vertical blinds, but they lose their slats so damn easily.

:p
 
ponderingturtle said:
So should we not let people you marry have any right to sue for wrongful death or what? Only blood relatives.
Click to expand...
I don't recall ever saying that.

All the crap you people are spouting as evidence for a "need" for the state to tinker with can be resolved without the state having anything to do with the institution of marriage.
 
RadioactiveMan said:
All the crap you people are spouting as evidence for a "need" for the state to tinker with can be resolved without the state having anything to do with the institution of marriage.
Click to expand...

Since marriage licenses in the USA have always been issued by the state, and marriage laws passed by the state, it is clear that marriage is a matter of civil law.

If people who are afflicted with religious delusions wish to invent a new thing, perhaps called Sanctity, they could restrict Sanctity licenses only to the sanctimonious and have Sanctity Ceremonies to celebrate their Sanctity.

Then folks could simply choose whether they wish Sanctity or Marriage.

How's that for crap spouting?
 
RadioactiveMan said:
I don't recall ever saying that.

All the crap you people are spouting as evidence for a "need" for the state to tinker with can be resolved without the state having anything to do with the institution of marriage.
Click to expand...
So what do you think gives you the rights that come with marriage, Joe down the street, or you just make up the laws as you see fit.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
DoubtingStephen said:
Since marriage licenses in the USA have always been issued by the state, and marriage laws passed by the state, it is clear that marriage is a matter of civil law.
Click to expand...
Just like since black people in the USA were always slaves, and slavery laws were passed by the States, blacks should clearly still be slaves.

How's that for crap spouting?
Click to expand...
Par for the course.
 
Marriage confers rights and privileges which are not available to those who choose to just be in a "private, intimate interpersonal relationship" It is true that there are other ways of conferring those rights and privileges: and it is true we could abolish them if we chose.

I think there are good reasons not to abolish them. That is, of course, debateable: but for me the right to be informed and consulted about the medical treatment of an incapacitated partner is quite important, and I do not see much wrong with privilege of that sort.That is but one example, but if the state does not recognise a special relationship there then I think the situation would be worse than it is now.

In this country civil partnerships are available to same sex couples and they confer those same rights and privileges. Problem for me is that they are not available to mixed gender couples. This is because there was seen to be some need to throw a sop to the religious, some of whom are committed to the idea that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Some gay people have been annoyed by the artificial distinction, and would have preferred to have the word as well as the rest.

What I would have preferred was for the choice of civil partnership to be available to me too: and for marriage to be available to same sex couples if that is what they want. I do not want to be married because the concept carries more baggage than I am willing to accept. This means that all of the problems described by Doubting Stephen are mine. I am not so stuck as gay people were before the change in the law because there is no legal barrier to my getting married: yet still I do not see why everyone cannot choose what suits them from among the various arrangements which exist.
 
RadioactiveMan said:
Just like since black people in the USA were always slaves, and slavery laws were passed by the States, blacks should clearly still be slaves.
Click to expand...
Straw-man, we are talking about marriage, not a ex-law that isn't one.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom