Kern County Clerk to Stop Performing Marriages

DoubtingStephen

Queer Propagandist
DoubtingStephen
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
1,545
Ann Barnett , the Clerk of Kern County in California has announced that, effective 3 days before gay marriages become legal in California, she will no longer perform wedding ceremonies. It's a very, very widespread custom.

While County Clerks are legally entitled to perform marriages, they are under no obligation to do so. A County Clerk is required by job description to issue marriage licenses to couples who qualify under the law, but it is merely customary that such clerks perform ceremonies.

In a certain tipoff as to the carefully not-stated reason for this decision, a news article indicates that she has been receiving legal counsel from the Alliance Defense Fund, a Fundamentalist legal organization that specializes in the legal harassment of gay and lesbian citizens.

23 heterosexual couples had marriages scheduled that have now fallen victim to this act of religious fervor.

It seems that Ms Barnett's first wish was to refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples, arguably based on her use of idiotic religious delusions to justify her bigotry. But legal officials in the county advised that this would certainly produce litigation, as well it should.

Kern County, it's not just for driving through with the car windows tightly sealed, it can be a source of entertainment too.

Nelson Muntz to you, Ann.
 
See that's 23 marriages destroyed by allowing same-sex marriages, and people said same-sex marriage wouldn't damage real marriage!
 
Darat said:
See that's 23 marriages destroyed by allowing same-sex marriages, and people said same-sex marriage wouldn't damage real marriage!
Click to expand...

Don't give them ideas! Though I wouldn't be surprised if one of them already thought of that 'argument'.
 
None of the news stories I've seen about this nice lady have mentioned what I think is a very salient point.

Ms Barnett has not stated in public what her real reason is for stopping these ceremonies, that is because she is hiding her bigotry in the closet where it belongs.

Meanwhile gay and lesbian couples who show up at County Clerk offices around the state starting in ten more days will be hiding nothing when they fill in the names of Person A and Person B on the application forms.

It seems quite appropriate that bigots should be in the closets formerly reserved for homosexuals.

<shameless_self_promotion>

God Hates Equal Rights

</shameless_self_promotion>
 
I'm a bit surprised at the polarisation in this debate, from both sides.

When gay marriage was introduced in Holland, the community officers who officiate weddings (and are the only ones allowed to do so) were not fired or dismissed from that function if they didn't want to officiate gay marriages. But each community was required to officiate gay marriages, and it was understood they could not appoint new officers with objections to gay marriages. That way, the problem just dies out in due time.

To wit: I'm an atheist, and I'm in favour of gay marriage. But can't we just try to get along peacefully?
 
ddt said:
To wit: I'm an atheist, and I'm in favour of gay marriage. But can't we just try to get along peacefully?
Click to expand...

I think that you might find that there have been no ballot initiatives sponsored by gay Americans that would have restricted the civil rights of Christians.

I think you might find that 100% of the anti-gay ballot measures in each and every state where they have appeared have been sponsored primarily or exclusively by Christian organizations.

I am prepared to stop defending myself against attacks by Christians just as soon as Christians stop attacking me.
 
ddt said:
I'm a bit surprised at the polarisation in this debate, from both sides.

When gay marriage was introduced in Holland, the community officers who officiate weddings (and are the only ones allowed to do so) were not fired or dismissed from that function if they didn't want to officiate gay marriages. But each community was required to officiate gay marriages, and it was understood they could not appoint new officers with objections to gay marriages. That way, the problem just dies out in due time.

To wit: I'm an atheist, and I'm in favour of gay marriage. But can't we just try to get along peacefully?
Click to expand...

What if the community officers didn't want to marry people of different religions, or particular ethnicities, or skin colors? Would you sit back and say they're entitled to their opinion and everything will work out because they'll retire eventually?
 
ddt said:
I'm a bit surprised at the polarisation in this debate, from both sides.

When gay marriage was introduced in Holland, the community officers who officiate weddings (and are the only ones allowed to do so) were not fired or dismissed from that function if they didn't want to officiate gay marriages. But each community was required to officiate gay marriages, and it was understood they could not appoint new officers with objections to gay marriages. That way, the problem just dies out in due time.

To wit: I'm an atheist, and I'm in favour of gay marriage. But can't we just try to get along peacefully?
Click to expand...

That is not the idea of the bigots in the US. They are trying to outlaw it, just like birth control.

I can be peaceful with them when they keep thier religous bigotry at home.
 
TragicMonkey said:
What if the community officers didn't want to marry people of different religions, or particular ethnicities, or skin colors? Would you sit back and say they're entitled to their opinion and everything will work out because they'll retire eventually?
Click to expand...

The Dutch civil code said since 1810 or so that a marriage is open to two people of different gender without any restriction on race or religion or anything like that. A couple of years ago it was changed to include marriages between two people of the same gender (yes, it literally says now that a marriage is open to two people of different or same gender).

Marriage officials who had done that job for years on end were confronted with a change in the law. Changes of laws always include measures for dealing with pre-existing situations under the changed circumstances. Why throw away the experience you've got in-house when it is unneeded?

I guess that if civil law had previously stated that inter-religious marriages were forbidden, or inter-ethnic marriages, I would have had the same pragmatic view. But those kind of marriages are as old as the world, so to say, whereas gay marriage has only been an item of public discussion since twenty years or so.
 
DoubtingStephen said:
It seems that Ms Barnett's first wish was to refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples, arguably based on her use of idiotic religious delusions to justify her bigotry. But legal officials in the county advised that this would certainly produce litigation, as well it should.
Click to expand...


Of course, such language as this reveals what ought to be an obvious truth to any rational and impartial observer, which is that those who are most shrill in denouncing people of faith as bigots, and to condemn the values that we hold as bigotry; are themselves not the least bit less bigoted than they accuse us of being.

Isaiah 5:20
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Of course, such language as this reveals what ought to be an obvious truth to any rational and impartial observer, which is that those who are most shrill in denouncing people of faith as bigots, and to condemn the values that we hold as bigotry; are themselves not the least bit less bigoted than they accuse us of being.
Click to expand...

Exactly how many of the 50 US States have seen ballot measures proposed by gay and lesbian citizens that would restrict the rights of Christians?

How many, Bob?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Of course, such language as this reveals what ought to be an obvious truth to any rational and impartial observer, which is that those who are most shrill in denouncing people of faith as bigots, and to condemn the values that we hold as bigotry; are themselves not the least bit less bigoted than they accuse us of being.
Click to expand...


In other words, because a myth told you so, you wish to justify your bigotry, while at the same time falsely accusing innocents of "bigoted' simply because they refuse to accept your bigotry.

It is now encumbent upon you to substantiate your claim that those who support gay/lesbian marriages have somehow tried to restrict the marriage rights of heterosexuals.

Produce your evidence.
 
Good riddance. I don't think the government should be in the marriage ceremony business anyway. And I agree with the comment in the linked article, why would you want to be married by someone who hated you?

The license is the important thing, and you would still be married if a rowboat captain married you instead of a clerk or minister as long as you have the license.

I disagree with the entire argument that Kern Co would be losing $50,000 income a year. The clerk could be paid less because they are doing less, two rooms would be freed up for business work, and there would be an easy income opportunity for churches or private business to pick up the ceremony.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Of course, such language as this reveals what ought to be an obvious truth to any rational and impartial observer, which is that those who are most shrill in denouncing people of faith as bigots, and to condemn the values that we hold as bigotry; are themselves not the least bit less bigoted than they accuse us of being.

Isaiah 5:20
Click to expand...


Let's see. Bigotry:

1.stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. 2.the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
Click to expand...

Now why would people call Christians discriminating against gay/lesbian marriages that. One just wonders. :rolleyes:
 
TragicMonkey said:
What if the community officers didn't want to marry people of different religions, or particular ethnicities, or skin colors? Would you sit back and say they're entitled to their opinion and everything will work out because they'll retire eventually?
Click to expand...
Couples have a right to marry, and they have a right to be treated equally under the law when they are married. There is no right enumerated anywhere to be married by any specific officer regardless of what that officer thinks. If an officer for whatever reason is uncomfortable with performing a few percent of ceremonies and has to ask another to do it, then I don't see that as necessarily a problem.
 
Most people do not get married by the county clerk anyway, and she cannot withhold the licenses.

Conclusion: She's a bigot, but it's an empty gesture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom