Whopsie daisy Pax. We had that little revolution thing,as you may remember ,and are no longer part of Great Britian

I was going to say, Sage, isn't England, like, in Europe?

It is definitely one of those funny colored countries on that big map ! LOL 

Okay. I get it. Pax is just trying to show off all his religious art (nice, Pax) and thought putting up Barnett's name would draw an audience. Good thinking. Pax may have a point about this England thing. Remember. The Beatles came from there and took the world by storm. 

The irony is that freedom of religion is guaranteed in the US Constitution to keep the Government from meddling in peoples faiths or establishing a state church like England did.  Now while we in the US are eager to give up our rights ,because Oprah told us to do so, the English are respecting peoples religious rights. 

I figure you should save the big bold headlines for something more significant, say, like the return of Christ. When you do this for something so minor and trivial, it seems look the boy who cried "Woof!". Sort of diminishes the impact of the important stuff. Know what I mean?

"The Beatles came from there and took the world by storm."

And thus began the downfall of mankind, all because of the Beatles, and Elvis. And NASCAR. Oh, and those awful, evil, satan worshiping, baby eating, kitten killing gay people. Yes, those gays and their evil marriages are the biggest problem facing mankind...ever. We will all die and go to hell if those gay people get married. The Apocalypse is upon us, thanks to the gays. Don't worry about energy costs, or health care, or food production, or infrastructure, or terrorists, or criminals, or nuclear war...no, lets just concentrate on the evils of those gay people getting married.

If their is a God, I hope he turns out to be gay.

The issue of this post is defending a citizens rights to religious freedom as guaranteed under the US Constitution.  What is matter can't you admit the point? 

H8cloz reads like book burning.

"defending a citizens rights to religious freedom" "Ann Barnett is VINDICATED"? So, what was the point of the post again???

Ann Barnett is NOT a CITIZEN when she is acting in a official duty as a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. SHE HAS NO RIGHT to ignore the law or the needs of the people FOR WHOM SHE SERVES, that means ALL OF THEM, buster, the GAY ones too. If she was a minister at a church who refused to marry gay people, then great...more power to her. But she's not. If the LAW changes again, so be it.

And, as for the book burning comment...you people would be the first to start burning books if you had the power to do so, wouldn't you? Burn all the porno mags, cause their dirty and evil. Burn all the books that offend your delicate religious sensibilities. Ban people from doing anything deemed to be unacceptable to your God, like gay people getting married!

Oh there's far worse things that can be done with porno mags...like recycling the paper to make Standard Bibles!

HAA!!!  SLAY ME!

"The Taliban religious police, who have imposed their strict version of Islamic law in two- thirds of Afghanistan, have reiterated their ban on paper bags. ''If we catch people using paper, they will face serious punishment,'' said a Taliban official. The Taliban allow only plastic bags, since recycled paper, they say, may include pages of the Koran."

Kind of like that?

I don't buy or read porno mags (nobody actually reads them anyway), but if I did, I would gladly donate them to your recycling program, since I don't read the Bible either. I just hate to waste paper.

And yet only a pathetic liberal would worship a worthless porno mag by having it embalmed with evil spirits from beyond the grave. Give to Caesar….

Can't we all just get along.  How about a nice, big, group cyberhug;) 

I'm not sure how Ann Barnett was vindicated.  Her stated reason for halting the weddings was financial (she saved taxpayers $171 for the year - although with the addition of just a handful of gay marriages that deficit would have been erased), and for "security" reasons (I guess all those hispanic faces can be intimidating to some). 

Remember, Ann Barnett chose to uphold the law she swore an oath to above her God.  She handed out the new forms, in compliance with the courts ruling, and let same gender couples sign on the dotted line.  And thanks to her, we now have gay people in Kern County who are now married.  And many of the Christians in town (including Chad Vegas, who spoke at the Supervisors meeting on Tuesday about ignoring the Constitution if it confliicts with God's law), are on record of supporting Ann Barnett without question in this manner. 

Ann Barnett didn't take a stand and she wasn't vindicated.  She was a moral coward who refused to speak publicly about her moral objection and who directed her office to take part in the legal aspect of the ceremonies.

Her great moral stand was against spending $171 dollars.

She wasn't vindicated. Her reputation is still mud.  

1. To clear of accusation, blame, suspicion, or doubt with supporting arguments or proof: “Our society permits people to sue for libel so that they may vindicate their reputations” (Irving R. Kaufman).

I seriously doubt she cares what her reputation is with the gay or gay advocate community.   You folks seem to be overlooking that little tidbit.  

Probably true, Nancy. Wayfarer likes to irritate and we stupidly respond to it.

LOL HM, and it works every time.

Nancy: maybe, maybe not.   I'd disagree that the only ones opposed to Barnett's actions are gay rights advocates.  I think many on the other side wish Barnett had actually taken a real stand and not just done a bit of legal wiggling that was more about saving her own job working for an agency that now specifically (though of course not exclusively) serves the GLBT community.

If your morals end where your paycheck begins, that's got nothing to do with morals.

Even so, lots of people on the other side opposed Barnett's decision including libertarians, civil rights supporters, liberals etfc.  The whole idea that a government should be regulating what has been argued is a religious ceremony is anathema to anyone who supports small government or church/state separation.

From HM "Wayfarer likes to irritate and we stupidly respond to it."

Wayfarer is a master at starting interesting, and yes...irritating blogs, to which we feel compelled to respond. For my part, I'm having fun. If I brought up this conversation at work, there would be complaints, charges filed, hearing boards convened, union meetings, new policy written and finally, some inane form of "sensitivity" training required to be taken. If Wayfarer didn't post stuff like this, I would probably explode in a huge mushroom cloud of pent up opinions.

Keep 'em coming Wayfarer!

h8cloz, I didn't see you at the latest "Blogger Sensitivity Training" class.  Well, it was a lecture really.  Well, maybe it was just Jason throwing bricks at us for an hour and half.

Anyway, look forward to seeing you at the next one.

HM and H8 me thinks, you give me too much credit;D 

Barnett's excuse for ending civil ceremonies based on financial issues was a complete crock - even the County Supervisors agree to that.

C'mon you guys.  All this has been said before.  On multiple posts.

Tom, love the Sensitivity Training..see if you can get me into the next class will ya?  :-)