Report: Calif. clerk to refuse all marriages (over gay marriage)

[The Straight Story]

Report: Calif. clerk to refuse all marriages

21 hours ago

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (AP) — A California county clerk says she'll stop performing all marriage ceremonies shortly before a state Supreme Court order legalizing same-sex marriage takes effect.

A newspaper says the move came after the clerk received advice from Kern County lawyers who said marriages cannot be performed in a discriminatory fashion.

The Bakersfield Californian says Clerk Ann Barnett said Wednesday she would not have the staff or space to deal with an increase in licenses and ceremonies. She plans to stop all ceremonies starting June 13 — three days before gay couples may legally wed.

The newspaper reports she asked county counsel to file a brief with the California Supreme Court opposing implementation of its May 15 ruling allowing gay marriage.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jmHw3e5jTHNV_gO1S-skFuwCC4RQD914P3VG0

[madmusic]

1. DU their poll

http://www.bakersfield.com/

Bottom right of page

[mike_c]

2. that's her right....

IIRC she's required to issue licenses to anyone who is legally qualified, but her office performed marriages as a service only, i.e. she's not required to perform marriages at all. It's unfortunate that she's choosing this route, but I think it's her right to do so.

[madmusic]

4. Yes, it's her right but she's still wrong.

Is it her right to lie about it?

Californian exclusive: Clerk went to great lengths to get out of same-sex ceremonies

http://www.bakersfield.com/hourly_news/story/464269.html

[mike_c]

6. I'm not sure I agree that it's "wrong...."

First, it points out the need for Kern County and other California counties to establish formal, legally mandated civil marriage ceremonies if the county wants to provide that service. Second, even Kern County gay activists acknowledge that a marriage license is all they actually need from the clerk's office-- they can obtain a civil ceremony elsewhere if they want one, and forcing the county clerk to conduct the ceremmony against her will serves no one's interests.

This is a tempest in a teapot, IMO-- not really very important despite the hot air it's generating. The only real consequence is that one bigot in public service has exposed herself. It will likely result in her replacement, sooner or later.

[madmusic]

7. Shady and disingenuous government sucks

No matter what the position is. She's hiding behind the law and that sucks.

This tempest in a teapot is only one of thousands across the country for a variety of reasons. Bush's attack on liberties is only a larger example of the same thing.

It isn't this isolated example that matters as much as the whole picture and that makes every tempest the perfect storm.

[madmusic]

8. You know, maybe DU is about 50/50 on gay marriage.

Hadn't occurred to me a reasonable minds can disagree.

But if so it is disingenuous to hide behind the law.

[mike_c]

9. I think you're missing my point-- we don't have any disagreement...

...about gay marriage as far as I can see. I unconditionally support ANYONE'S desire to marry if that's what they want (speaking as a happily single straight man, LOL). I don't see this county clerk's action as any impediment to anyone getting married, and as I said, at least some Kern County gay activists appear to agree. She isn't refusing to do her job or anything-- conducting marriages was never really her job in the first place, and this event simply highlights that. Her office will issue licenses-- that is far and away the main matter except as it relates to county revenue-- as long as folks can get a license, they can get married in any number of ways. The county makes money from those particular ceremonies though, and has created rooms specifically to conduct them, so I suspect this matter will be resolved pretty quickly, and in being resolved will probably be improved, either by finding some other agency to conduct civil ceremonies on Kern County's behalf or by clarifying the responsibilities of the county clerk.

Really, all I think this matter has done is highlight one woman's bigotry. It's not a big deal beyond that, IMO.

[Bluebear]

3. Bakersfield sounds like a charming place. nt

[pink-o]

5. Oh, it's one of my FAVORITES!!!

:sarcasm:

I posted about this a few weeks ago--nothing frosts me more than "public servants" or "customer service employees" in private corporations who refuse to DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS because their personal principles are ruffled. I have a customer service job with the airlines--and as a vegetarian, would it be appropriate for me to refuse to check in hunting rifles??? HELL NO, and I wouldn't do it! I do not carry the moral standard for humanity, and I wouldn't dream of inserting myself in someone else's life.

But say I tried: I'd be soooo fired I wouldn't be able to blink before I got my badge ripped off me and thrown outta the airport. But funny: if I were a PHARMACIST and refused to give a woman the morning-after pill, the wagons would be circled around me. And if I were a county clerk and refused to marry a same-sex couple WHO WERE AS IN LOVE AS ANYONE ELSE!!!!! I'd also get to keep my job????? WTF???

The fucking fundies have ruined my country just as much as the sick neo-cons in power. I loathe the fact that they're so protected, while we secular critical thinkers are more and more marginalized.