Kern County Clerk to Stop Performing Marriages

[ponderingturtle]

I didn't say that. Do you have anything specific in mind, or are you just bantering generalities?

You where having such fun talking in absolutes that there was no room for compramise.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You where having such fun talking in absolutes that there was no room for compramise.

Compromise is not necessarily always a good thing, anyway.

 

[Loss Leader]

Kern Couty is, mostly, Bakersfield. It's 100 miles north of LA.

Write to the Chief Administrative Officer and the Board of Supervisors of Kern County to register your displeasure:

CAO Ronald Errea can be found here: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/cao/general/caostaff.asp

The Board of Supervisors: board@co.kern.ca.us

Chair of the County Board of Supervisors Michael Rubio: district5@co.kern.ca.us

And the other Supervisors: Jon McQuistonDistrict 1Don MabenDistrict 2Mike MaggardDistrict 3Ray Watson

You can't email Clerk Barnett but you can call her: (661) 868-3588

Use this info responsibly.

 

[Loss Leader]

The email I sent to Chairman Michael Rubio:

As a frequent visitor to California, I have always been impressed with Bakersfield and the surrounding area of Kern County. I have found it a pleasant and amiable alternative to Los Angeles. This is why I was so displeased with County Clerk Barnett's recent announcement that she would not be celebrating marriages any longer.

Ms. Barnett's reasoning, expressed on the County website, is stated as follows: "We will not have the staff or space to deal with an increase in both licenses and ceremonies. Because of long-term administrative plans, budgetary reasons, and the need to increase security for elections, the Clerk’s office will cease solemnizing weddings ..." This will take place three days before homosexuals are allowed to marry in California.

It strains the bounds of credulity to think that Kern will be so overrun with committed homosexuals that the County Clerk's staff and space will be significantly challenged. Nor does it seem at all likely that Kern's budget would buckle under the stress. As regards elections, Kern has been having those without incident for quite some time.

Obviously, the only reason for the County Clerk's change in policy is that she is personally opposed to equality for gay men and women. While it is her right to hold such views, her responsibilities as an officer of the government should take precedence. If she cannot do the job because of her conscience, she should not be doing the job at all.

Of course, county clerks have the choice of whether to solemnize weddings. However, the choice she has made is reflecting poorly on her post, on your government and on your county. It says to the whole world that homosexuals will not be treated fairly in your otherwise fair county.

And I will be interested to see the choice she makes if homosexual marriages are eventually rejected by the voters.

I am sure there are many government officials in Bakersfield and Kern who will solemnize homosexual unions. However, the distaste for your County Clerk will not fade from my memory. I will not be visiting you again so long as Ms. Barnett's ugly and discriminatory policy persists.

Yours,

Feel free to change, copy and then change the copies.

 

[articulett]

Very Nice.

 

[G-K-4]

Am I correct in believing that, in the U.S., a couple must first get a license, and then they have to be officially wed at a (conceptually) separate event. Why are there two steps?

When they are approved to get a license, why does the couple then have to go through another procedure to conclude the process? Is it just custom? Aren't the two signatures on (what is now) the license enough for the government to recognize their new legal status?

 

[Loss Leader]

Am I correct in believing that, in the U.S., a couple must first get a license, and then they have to be officially wed at a (conceptually) separate event.

Yes. Although some states have a waiting period after you get the license and some states don't. In New York, it is 24 hours; In Nevada, it is none.

Why are there two steps? When they are approved to get a license, why does the couple then have to go through another procedure to conclude the process? Is it just custom? Aren't the two signatures on (what is now) the license enough for the government to recognize their new legal status?

Technically, the marriage license is the second, added step. The wedding ceremony predates it by ... all of human history.

As far as the civil government it concerned, the reason for a wedding celebration is to formally impress upon the bride and groom the gravity of the commitment they are making. In fact, that is the only requirement. There are no particularly required words to say or rituals to perform. Any "sufficiently serious" ceremony is acceptable.

Merely signing a piece of paper is not considered by the government to be sufficient evidence that one understands and consents to entering into the status of matrimony.

Perhaps you find this illogical. Perhaps you think there is no reason for the law to operate this way. That does not change the fact that the law exists, that this is the reasoning behind it and that it will never, ever change.

 

[G-K-4]

Technically, the marriage license is the second, added step. The wedding ceremony predates it by ... all of human history.

Ha. Clever.

Any "sufficiently serious" ceremony is acceptable.

Well, you did mention Nevada. I guess there are some places with very low standards of seriousness, like those places in Las Vegas with Elvis impersonators. If that counts, I see no reason why I can't just sign some paperwork in the wedding palace, shake hands before a judge to seal the deal, and then place a bouquet at the foot of the Statue of Liberty. It should take ten minutes if you don't count the ferry ride.

Merely signing a piece of paper is not considered by the government to be sufficient evidence that one understands and consents to entering into the status of matrimony.

After all of the changes that marriage in the U.S. has gone through in the last hundred years, I guess that "seriousness" may be the last shred of gravitas it has.

Perhaps you find this illogical. Perhaps you think there is no reason for the law to operate this way. That does not change the fact that the law exists, that this is the reasoning behind it and that it will never, ever change.

1.) Yes. 2.) Yes. 3.) Why not? Are people in the U.S. too sentimental?

Do incorporation or the setting up of partnerships require waiting periods and special ceremonies? Compared to marriage, are they sufficiently different kinds of status regarding law, taxation, and property?

 

[Fiona]

Just for information: does this clerk take a cut in wages because of this decision?

 

[DoubtingStephen]

Do incorporation or the setting up of partnerships require waiting periods and special ceremonies? Compared to marriage, are they sufficiently different kinds of status regarding law, taxation, and property?

In the case of forming a corporation, it may be necessary to wait while a search is made to determine whether the proposed name of the new corporation is already in use, this is not at all like the waiting period for marriages.

I believe the reason why some states have a waiting period is to create a cooling off period in case the decision to marry was made in the heat of passion. This is not so often the case with creating a corporation. Men, for example, seldom get the impulse to incorporate in response to a powerful erection.

Many states also require that Partner A and Partner B have blood tests to determine if either partner has any of certain communicable diseases.

 

[Loss Leader]

I see no reason why I can't just sign some paperwork in the wedding palace, shake hands before a judge to seal the deal, and then place a bouquet at the foot of the Statue of Liberty.

Shaking hands before a judge would probably be sufficient. So, you can do this if you want to. You'll still have to: a) make an appointment ahead of time with the judge; b) be in a state without a waiting period; and c) get the judge to agree that this is a sufficient ceremony so she signs the marriage license. The reason why is because that's the way the world works.

Why not? Are people in the U.S. too sentimental?

Sure. Also, the current requirement isn't really bothering anybody, so there's nothing to overcome the inertia of the status quo.

Do incorporation or the setting up of partnerships require waiting periods and special ceremonies?

Incorporation does. It requires the consent of the Secretary of State, the filing of Articles of Incorporation, written evidence of yearly stockholders meetings and yearly meetings of the Board of Directors. Many of these documents must be notarized, in which a notary asks if you swear to the contents of the document and you say, "I do."

Compared to marriage, are they sufficiently different kinds of status regarding law, taxation, and property?

Technically, incorporation and partnerships aren't "statuses" at all. Marriage is. However, assuming the lay meaning of status, the answer is yes. They are vastly different regarding law, taxation and property.

 

[articulett]

And insurance and default estate distribution and hospital visitation and rights of children--

Most, but not all of these things can be accomplished via other means. Marriage has a kit and kaboodle or "rights" that come with it for some folks... In the past, it was the only way for a woman to have status as an adult on many levels.

But someone other than the parties involved must witness and "notarize" or otherwise officiate the event. Even in Las Vegas, our Elvis Impersonators must be reverends of recognized churches or justices of the peace or to make the document an "official" marriage with all the rights and privileges that come with it. Nevada, unlike California won't expect marriages by ULC ministers who can be ordained by clicking a button on line.

Michael Shermer is just such a minister-- (so am I, but who isn't)?-- but he can officiate legal ceremonies. I imagine other Enterprising Kern County folk will be able to do the same since Ms. Holier-than-thou's principles make her unable to participate. I don't know if there needs to be some sort of notary signature or something on top of the ULC license.


ordain me

legalities

I think I could officiate a wedding as well as any Elvis Impersonator, and I'd be glad for the job if my State allowed my online ordination to count.

 

[articulett]

From my second link--

I got ordained so I could perform marriages. What do I need to do to legally perform marriages?

You just need to check with your local County Clerk's Office and get details on things like filing the marriage license, ages of consent, blood test requirements, etc. They'll be happy to give you all the details and necessary forms. While you're there, ask them to show you how to fill out the license, so you can be sure you do everything correctly. Other things to check on are whether you need to file a copy of your ordination credentials before doing weddings, whether you need a license from the state or county to do weddings, how many days before you must return the marriage license to the county, which office to file the license with, and are there any other requirements before you can perform weddings. Again, you're advised against trying to register using only your e-mail letter of ordination. Be prepared to show your Certificate of Ordination, or, at the very least, the Letter of Ordination on Church Letterhead, both available on our catalog page at http://www.ficotw.org/catalog.htm.

Finally, Nevada, Oregon, and New York City all have laws that may require you to have a formally recognized church with a congregation before being allowed to do weddings. This may require you to incorporate your ministry in Oregon and Nevada.

We also have a great many members and ministers located in Canada, and that country has particularly restrictive laws regarding who may register to perform marriages. But even in Canada your ordination is acceptable for all other regular duties of any member of the clergy.

 

[Darat]

...snip...


Technically, the marriage license is the second, added step. The wedding ceremony predates it by ... all of human history.

...snip...

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.

 

[Paulhoff]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Paul

 

[Loss Leader]

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.

I guess it depends on whether you mean "license" to be an actual piece of paper evincing a license and not the concept of license itself.

 

[pgwenthold]

Michael Shermer is just such a minister-- (so am I, but who isn't)?-- but he can officiate legal ceremonies. I imagine other Enterprising Kern County folk will be able to do the same since Ms. Holier-than-thou's principles make her unable to participate.

I think I read in the LA Times article that Unitarian ministers will be waiting outside on the courthouse steps to marry any couple that wants them to.

 

[articulett]

I think I read in the LA Times article that Unitarian ministers will be waiting outside on the courthouse steps to marry any couple that wants them to.

That's great... I hope more people click and become ordained.

Those of you in the area-- now is the time and place to show your support, get ordained, and earn a bit of extra income.

 

[RadioactiveMan]

Marriage is a legal contract between two people

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...

 

[DoubtingStephen]

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...

Well, the recent California Supreme Court decision was not so much about gay and lesbian couples being allowed to have any particular ceremonies, it was about the legal rights of gay and lesbian couples to equal treatment under the law when dealing with their government. Screw the churches, each and every one.

You may consider marriage to be a religious matter, but since this matter was decided in a court of law your opinion does not seem to align very well with the facts at hand.

I could care less which couples this or that religious organization chooses to solemnize with their mumbo jumbo, I just want to have the same legal rights as any other citizen. And now I do.

I'm not so sure I agree that marriage has always been a religious matter, it is about property rights, inheritance rights, and in our modern times details like hospital visitation rights.

I wonder if you can provide historical references to validate your assertion that religious marriage ceremonies predate the first human governments, but whether you can or you can't, this struggle is about legal rights. The involvement of religion in performing or not performing marriages today is completely inconsequential to the boxes I check when filling out a tax return.

Besides, if it is really true that religion existed before laws, how did anyone survive?