Kern County Clerk to Stop Performing Marriages

Fiona said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think that there are other ways of giving many of the rights of spouces have.

How do you give someone standing? Or the right not to testify against you?
 
The civil partnership is one such way: while you might think it is a distinction without a difference I do not quite agree, for the reasons stated
 
I don't know what people are arguing about in this thread.

Marriage is a social institution incorporated into both religious and civil law.

This will never, ever change. You can debate it and argue about it and bloody your fists punching each other about it but be certain of one thing: the institution of marriage will remain embedded in religious and civil law for as long as you, your children, your grandchildren and their grandchildren are alive. And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
 
Kern County Clerk Ann Barnett has spoken to the press as of yesterday, but she still refuses to tell the truth about her reasons for penalizing straight and gay couples alike in canceling all wedding ceremonies.

She did blather on and on about her church, and what a central role it plays in her life. And she admits that an ultra-right wing Fundamentalist law firm run by out-of-state activist agitators is consulting with her about her actions.

Whitney Wedell, a leader in Bakersfield's small but close-knit gay community, acknowledged that gay men and lesbians face an uphill battle finding acceptance in the county. But she said that shouldn't give an elected official license to sidestep the law.

Anyway, Wedell said, Barnett's decision won't stop gay marriage in Kern County.

"She is required to hand out licenses, so she will be making these marriages happen whether she likes it nor not," said Wedell, who plans to marry her partner of two years Tuesday on a shaded patio just outside the clerk's office.

"If it really bothers her conscience, she might want to consider stepping down," Wedell said.
Click to expand...
(link)

About two dozen ministers have offered to perform free wedding ceremonies for any and all license-bearing couples, without discrimination. Yet Ms Barnett persists with her plans and continues to claim that logistics considerations are the source of her decision.

When a person does not tell the truth, others may be inclined to question their honesty.

Should public employees be honest and forthcoming about the actions they take in their official capacity? Or is deceit justified when it is done to protect the Sanctity of Bigotry?
 
Well, to me it's the former... but then I'm for honesty and, thus, against religion.

For believers it seems all lies are acceptable so long as it supports their pet delusion-- particularly the one where they see themselves as righteous and humble.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
So you don't ever compromise then.
Click to expand...


Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Sir Winston Churchill, Speech, 1941, Harrow School
British politician (1874 - 1965)
 
Last edited:
Isn't he asking you to compromise in regards to what rights other people are allowed to take from you?

Isn't that like saying, "you should be glad I just spit on you since my principles call for me to stone you"?

What exactly is the opposing side compromising? No one is asking them to have a homosexual marriage against their consent, right? No one is asking them to buy presents or give a thumbs up. Folks who wish to marry don't usually need the approval of others last I heard.

I had to put PT on ignore... too many straw men... not enough substance. My principles don't allow me to entertain straw men. :p
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
Isn't he asking you to compromise in regards to what rights other people are allowed to take from you?
Click to expand...

You realize that this was addressing only the issue dutch officials being able to refuse to marry people. It was not about if gay marriage should be legal.

Many here are arguing for forcing people to perform gay marriages.
 
ponderingturtle said:
You realize that this was addressing only the issue dutch officials being able to refuse to marry people. It was not about if gay marriage should be legal.

Many here are arguing for forcing people to perform gay marriages.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that is the case. As far as I can tell, the posters are arguing that if your job requires that you perform a service (legal, ya da da), then perform that service.

I don't see anyone in this thread arguing that the change in California law requires that any specific religious body therefore allow gay marriages in their sanctuary. Just that a county clerk should continue to provide the same service as before. To more people.
 
bluess said:
I don't believe that is the case. As far as I can tell, the posters are arguing that if your job requires that you perform a service (legal, ya da da), then perform that service.
Click to expand...

No they are agruing that there is no room for compromise when a job has its description changed. In the US this is pretty much true, but in areas of much stronger labor laws, I can see why there would be restrictions from forcing people to quit becuase you changed the nature of their job.
I don't see anyone in this thread arguing that the change in California law requires that any specific religious body therefore allow gay marriages in their sanctuary. Just that a county clerk should continue to provide the same service as before. To more people.
Click to expand...

The winston churchill comment certainly seems to invoke images of force.
 
ponderingturtle said:
No they are agruing that there is no room for compromise when a job has its description changed. In the US this is pretty much true, but in areas of much stronger labor laws, I can see why there would be restrictions from forcing people to quit becuase you changed the nature of their job.
Click to expand...

The change is that she apparently doesn't want to perform a service for two people of the same gender. I'm not sure that the actual service itself has changed.

If the change in law required the employee to put on vestements of another faith or required that the service be performed after business hours, I would agree that the employee has a legitimate concern. If the change is that more people are going to request the original service, and that the increase in time allotted for providing that service has been addressed, I don't see the problem here.

Except for this one employee's concern that same-gender couples should not marry.


The winston churchill comment certainly seems to invoke images of force.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. I'm much more a believer in not becoming a part of a group where I disagree with fundamental philosophies. Like that whole equality thing. :D
 
bluess said:
The change is that she apparently doesn't want to perform a service for two people of the same gender. I'm not sure that the actual service itself has changed.

If the change in law required the employee to put on vestements of another faith or required that the service be performed after business hours, I would agree that the employee has a legitimate concern. If the change is that more people are going to request the original service, and that the increase in time allotted for providing that service has been addressed, I don't see the problem here.

Except for this one employee's concern that same-gender couples should not marry.
Click to expand...

So? It is a change in the nature of the job. If they would quit over this change than to them it is serious enough change that I could well see civil charges around it.

So in a context of sufficiently pro labor laws, I could well see this as a practical compromise. It does not restrict anyone from getting married, shouldn't put much delay in anyones getting married and avoides some potentialy expensive lawsuits.
 
I don't agree that the recent CA Supreme Court decision has resulted in a change in the nature of the job or the job description.

Before the ruling takes effect later today this part of the County Clerk's job was to issue marriage licenses to those couples who are legally entitled to obtain such a license.

After 5PM today the requirement will be the same, but some additional couples will be entitled to obtain marriage licenses.

It is true that previously only heterosexual couples were served, but the sexual orientation of her customers is not a proper matter for her concern and it is not an issue that is described in the job description of a California County Clerk.

It remains an unfortunate fact that this lady has not been honest and forthright about her actual reasons for canceling all wedding ceremonies conducted by her department. Apparently her prejudice is so extreme that she is willing to inconvenience all couples, Christian and non-Christian, straight, lesbian, and gay, just to protect the Sanctity of Bigotry.

It does seem that she has not and does not plan to violate any laws, but the whole matter smacks of deceit, duplicity, and a very insincere public servant.

I hope that she will have some sort of an epiphany and seize the opportunity before her to promote the highest ideals of our great nation, in this case equal justice under the law and our shared commitment to decency and fair play. That would be so much better for her and the county government that she serves.
 
DoubtingStephen said:
I don't agree that the recent CA Supreme Court decision has resulted in a change in the nature of the job or the job description.

Before the ruling takes effect later today this part of the County Clerk's job was to issue marriage licenses to those couples who are legally entitled to obtain such a license.

After 5PM today the requirement will be the same, but some additional couples will be entitled to obtain marriage licenses.

It is true that previously only heterosexual couples were served, but the sexual orientation of her customers is not a proper matter for her concern and it is not an issue that is described in the job description of a California County Clerk.

It remains an unfortunate fact that this lady has not been honest and forthright about her actual reasons for canceling all wedding ceremonies conducted by her department. Apparently her prejudice is so extreme that she is willing to inconvenience all couples, Christian and non-Christian, straight, lesbian, and gay, just to protect the Sanctity of Bigotry.

It does seem that she has not and does not plan to violate any laws, but the whole matter smacks of deceit, duplicity, and a very insincere public servant.

I hope that she will have some sort of an epiphany and seize the opportunity before her to promote the highest ideals of our great nation, in this case equal justice under the law and our shared commitment to decency and fair play. That would be so much better for her and the county government that she serves.
Click to expand...

I am not aware if this is the case everywhere, but in some areas the position of County Clerk is an elected position. I do hope this position is elected in her County, so that all couples Christian and Non, Hetero or Homosexual, who have been inconvenienced and put to extra expense by this woman's bigotry have the opportunity to promote the election of a candidate that is willing to serve all constituents in the county rather than picking and choosing those she will serve.
 
DoubtingStephen said:
I don't agree that the recent CA Supreme Court decision has resulted in a change in the nature of the job or the job description.
Click to expand...

And how does a CA Supreme Court Decision matter in Holland?
Before the ruling takes effect later today this part of the County Clerk's job was to issue marriage licenses to those couples who are legally entitled to obtain such a license.
Click to expand...

That still has not changed. The county clerk was not required to marry people though.
 
Patsy said:
I am not aware if this is the case everywhere, but in some areas the position of County Clerk is an elected position. I do hope this position is elected in her County, so that all couples Christian and Non, Hetero or Homosexual, who have been inconvenienced and put to extra expense by this woman's bigotry have the opportunity to promote the election of a candidate that is willing to serve all constituents in the county rather than picking and choosing those she will serve.
Click to expand...

How many people actualy get married by the county clerk though?

I don't know that anyone I know as married by a county clerk. So I think that the percentage of marriages that the county clerk presides over are likely small, so it will inconvience very few people.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And how does a CA Supreme Court Decision matter in Holland?
Click to expand...

I guess that gay and lesbian couples from the Netherlands are now welcome to come to Palm Springs, CA for a friendly and welcoming wedding ceremony combined with a wonderful honeymoon in our refreshing desert climate.

I realize they could be married at home, but I've been to Holland, so I know why they might want to come here :)
 
ponderingturtle said:
How many people actualy get married by the county clerk though?

I don't know that anyone I know as married by a county clerk. So I think that the percentage of marriages that the county clerk presides over are likely small, so it will inconvience very few people.
Click to expand...

If a public service is being a public bigot, is the NUMBER of people they are inconveniencing really relevant?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom