Ah...what a sweet editorial. I love it. Brilliant. Thank you so much for writing it.

This editorial represents an over-simplification of his position.  He's probably deeply conflicted over a clash between his personal principles and the ruling.  I don't think this editorial reflects an appreciation for the depth of his conflict and I don't think the author really understands the nature of his conflict. 

Rather than somebody from the Californian, who is otherwise a skillful writer, assume where he is coming from, it would be better to here his side of the story.  It would be better to interview him so that we could get a better understanding of his motives and of the nature of his conflict on this matter.  Do I think he has an inherent disregard for the law?  Certainly not.  Do I think he hates gays?  Certainly not.  For evangelicals, this is a complex issue with no easy way to respond.  It's even more difficult when you're in a leadership position and the beliefs that you were raised with conflict in a profound way with the changes taking place in society. 

Whether he's conflicted or not is immaterial. If he can't uphold his vow he needs to resign his post. Even you can understand that BLT.

Then ask him why he hasn't resigned his post.  Maybe he's got a good reason for not abandoning his post.  We don't know.  All we're left with, without interviewing him is one-sided speculation. 

Religious freedom is guaranteed in the US Constitution.  Those who argue that a government employee or official give up that right and must silence his conscience must also agree that nazi war criminals were justified in committing immoral acts ,because there government ordered it.  It is interesting how people flip flop on issues to please mere men ,but have no fear of God.   

Good point.  At least cross-examine him (no pun intended) before you crucify him in the press. 

Render Caesar what is Caesars and God what is God's.  If you ever studied Christian history you would noticed that many Roman Patriots and members of the government were tortured to death for refusing to burn a little incense to the emperor.  Can any one else who calls themselves Christian do any less.  Plus same sex marriage is not just offensive to the Christians, but also Muslims, Jews, and Buddhist.  It is even contrary to secularist who hold to evolutionary theory which the whole point is survival of the fittest and passing on of genes to be the meaning of life.  If homosexuals can not reproduce then the evolutionist must argue that they be removed from the gene pool.  Note that the last is according to secularist dogma not mine. 

They will call you a bigot and a hater for having a moral opinion on the matter, Wayfarer.  Some suggest having love in our hearts for our neighbors as ourselves (central to following Christ's example) means rubber stamping everything with a happy face. 

Great job on the Editorial. I don't think it was over-simplified at all. Sure you can say that his reasoning is more nuanced, but it all boils down to him being an elected servant of the public, and he feels that his religion trumps his job, and he has shown over and over that that is how he feels. This has nothing to do with religious freedom. He is free to worship as he sees fit, but if he is to work as an elected official, he needs to leave his hang-ups (being anti gay) in church. Maybe he doesn't "hate" gay people, but he obviously thinks they shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals. He, as well as Ann Barnett should resign, but of course they won't because they feel holier than thou. 

RECALL THEM BOTH!

They usually do blognroll ,but I was raised to respect those who took and stand for what is right instead just being quiet and getting along, unhassled.  I also wonder what the Californians motive for these editorials.  Is it to cause controversy and sell more papers?  If that be the case then wouldn't that be a exploitation of the Christian and homosexual communities for profit? 

 Great job on the Editorial.

I would love to agree.  I always like to encourage writers.  But the piece is woefully one-sided and unfair because it forms conclusions without fully examining a variety of hypotheses. 

...Sure you can say that his reasoning is more nuanced, but it all boils down to him being an elected servant of the public, and he feels that his religion trumps his job, and he has shown over and over that that is how he feels.

People share different views of what it means to be "an elected servant of the public."  When you are saying "he feels that his religion trumps his job" you are creating an artificial dicotymy.  For an evangelical Christian, your Christian principles are embedded deep within your heart and soul.  You don't have to pimp your principles, but you can't leave them at the door either.   

This has nothing to do with religious freedom. He is free to worship as he sees fit, but if he is to work as an elected official, he needs to leave his hang-ups (being anti gay) in church.

By using the term "hang-ups" you and "anti gay" you are putting a pejorative spin on his beliefs.  Just because his beliefs on gay marriage are different from yours doesn't mean you should judge him or judge his beliefs, casting them in such a negative light. 

Maybe he doesn't "hate" gay people, but he obviously thinks they shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals. He, as well as Ann Barnett should resign, but of course they won't because they feel holier than thou. 

These are assumptions that you're making about what he thinks concerning gays and their rights.  You are assuming that because they have strong beliefs on the issue, that they feel they are holier than everybody else.  That may or may not be the case.  People have different reasons than thinking they are better than others for the decisions that they make. 

The last sentence in the editorial, from Ecclesiastes 5:5 was a great touch (in advance, and to avoid a topic changing comment, I claim no journalistic knowledge, Chico).  Good job.

Good one Blognroll;) 

Wayfarer, this is wrong: Plus same sex marriage is not just offensive to the Christians, but also Muslims, Jews, and Buddhist.

Actually, it's not.  Some Christians and Muslims and Jews and Buddists are offended by it and try to pretend that their offense is purely religious.

If you can justify this, it's very easy to justify genocide or racism, just as long as it's in your belief system. In fact if you use religion as an excuse not to FOLLOW THE LAW, then you can do all sorts of rotten things. You say I shouldn't judge them, but you're forgetting that they, by their words and actions, are judging a whole group of people. Funny, I always thought Christians weren't supposed to judge others. Maybe they choose to forget that one.

It's nice to see someone attempt to justify or at least defend their actions. At the very least it adds to the discussion.

Barnett has been criticized because she's lying. I'm not saying she should resign her post: she's apparently fully within her rights as the county clerk to not have wedding ceremonies. Fine. It's a service; her office chooses not to have it, despite the inconvenience to a fairly large portion of the citizenry. She didn't even have to give a reason.

The problem I have is her stated reasons have varied widely and have been debunked. Saving money. Security. Lack of space. And so on. That's total bull, and she knows it. She didn't want to give the real reason, which is why she was contacting the county counsel office, which told her if you're going to have marriage ceremonies, you have to have them all. (Gee, imagine that -- the county counsel told her she has to follow the law).

Just don't insult our intelligence by saying she changed the policy with a bait-and-switch tactic. Either just make it clear "I'm changing the policy, and I don't have to explain it" or tell us the real reason. The problem with telling us the real reason is it doesn't give her an out. We don't like being lied to, and it doesn't help assuage fears over anything else the clerk's office oversees that might be important, like, oh, I don't know, an election.

That concerns me far more than whether she condones marriage or not, which, based on her actions, she doesn't. She doesn't have any problem recording the results of divorces. Isn't that against her religious beliefs as well

Wayfayer, you've made some great points as well.

Funny, I always thought Christians weren't supposed to judge others. Maybe they choose to forget that one.

Wanting to preserve and defend a traditional definition of marriage is not necessarily an example of judging others.  I hold to the belief that we are all condemned under the law, and are all destined to parish without the blood of Christ to clense our hearts.  Regardless of our sexual orientation, we are all on the same sinking ship.  We all have equal access to the life vests as well.  

It's nice to see someone attempt to justify or at least defend their actions. At the very least it adds to the discussion.

The only thing I'm here to defend is the idea of cross-examining a person before crucitying that person in the press.

Why do you and other Christians (not all Christians believe as you do) get to define how everyone lives their lives? This is what it's all about. You defining what it means to be in a loving relationship that is also a legal bond. Since it is a legal bond, the courts decided who can participate, but you can't accept that, can you.

Why should Christians or anyone else that disagrees with the courts finding, have their beliefs walked all over? Everyone's morality comes from somewhere. Homosexuals have every right heterosexuals do and always have. Now they have "special" rights based upon their life choices. Why should anyone have to respect that?

Next up: Bulemics demand the right to throw up at their restaurant table.

We don't Pete that is just a judgment you are making about us and while we are at it what gives you the right to judge God;D 

Witbee, are you saying that people should be able to disregard court judgments if their morality has a different opinion?  I think that opens a can of worms.

We Wiccans often refer to marriage as Handfasting.  Our sacrament of handfasting is, in most traditions, available to couples without regard to the sameness or difference of their genders.

Are you saying that you, or a body of lawmakers, or a majority vote, should be allowed to tell me what my sacraments must mean?

We are often told that the government should stay out of the business of churches.  Now is the time to make good on that.

Witbee, here's the problem: you can't have laws that discriminate based on sex.  You can't have one set of laws for women and another for men.  Gay people aren't asking for "special rights".  You too now may marry whomever you choose.

I'd like to meet Vegas sometime. He'd be spewing profanities at me in nothing flat.

We are often told that the government should stay out of the business of churches.

To a certain extent, yes. But churches must follow certain government rules if they wish to keep their tax-free status. Churches are not, and never will be, independent states subject only to their own laws. Any church which acts in a manner that violates the rules that allow it to maintain its non-profit status deserves to have its ticket pulled until it agrees to toe the line.

Churches should stay out of the government's business, too. They have absolutely nothing of substance to contribute.

JBS, government won't stop them from being churches though.  But if you want the benefit of not paying taxes, you have to jump through certain hoops.

 Witbee, are you saying that people should be able to disregard court judgments if their morality has a different opinion? 

I'm saying that when you elect someone who is obviously living their life by a specific morality, you should not be surprised when they make decisions based on that morality. The court decision is not cut and dried the issue is still up in the air.

you can't have laws that discriminate based on sex.  You can't have one set of laws for women and another for men. 

I agree.

The bottom line is, Vegas is a classic extremist evangelical , a self-styled religious prophet with a personal agenda which he hopes to force onto the public.

Nothing new about that phenomenon.

The world is full of Falwells, Robertsons, Haggards, etal who foist themselves off on society as the arbiters of morality.

There are a few others of his ilk serving on Kern County boards who strive to shove God down the the collective public throat, like it or not, rather than serve the secular good of the populace.

Like Bush and other religious panderers, Vegas will soon recede into county history with little fanfare, just as the former Belridge School District superintendent melted into defamed obscurity.

There, he will join Mettler, Sullivan, Barnett and the other bible beaters who have temporarily hijacked various governmental panels and offices throughout the years.

But, believe it or not, there's enough sensible people in the county to keep these wackos at bay

However, the problem is, they just don't get out to the polls and vote.

They probably figure no one's dumb enough to vote for these idiots.

Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Maybe next time around, the sensible people will vote these jerks out of their respective offices and restore some sense to local politics.

Well, we can dream, can't we?

we need to throw vegas out on the street, let him be a rev. not a trustee, if he is not going to up hold the stat const. then he can not be trusted. i do not agree with all this chit chat about gay crap, lets complain about something more important. vegas has no concept about other things in our community, he is making a big deal about something that he has no control over.

All I can take away from Mr. Vegas's situational moral views,is that  he belives God thinks it is just fine to lie to men/women. 

Thanks for the great editorial.  Thankfully, we still live beyond the grasp of the theocrats like Chad Vegas, who continually try to enforce their moralistic perceptions on the public at large by any means necessary. This is a pluralistic society where the right to worship is guaranteed under our Constitution. This does not mean one religous sect has the right to govern over everyone else. There is a big difference between worship and govern, which Chad Vegas obviously has difficulty comprehending.

 All I can take away from Mr. Vegas's situational moral views,is that  he belives God thinks it is just fine to lie to men/women. 

I don't think this is an example of  "situational moral views," I think its the outcome of a moral dilemma that he faced.  Sometimes we are offered two wrongs, and must choose between them.  I'm not necessarily defending his actions, I'm just saying, don't crucify him before you've had a chance to cross-examine him. 

He could have been honest about his moral dilemma, but instead choose to lie to cover up the true reason for his decision. This tells me that he thinks it's OK to lie to his constituents. 

That is one view BLT~ clearly I have another. Plus I have no wood,nails or desire to 'crucify" anyone,let alone Mr.Vegas.

To my eye his "moral dilemma" is,as in most folks case,of his own making. He should not have entered public service if he can not uphold his oath. I hear preachers do their best work from the pulpit.

BLT wrote: "He's probably deeply conflicted over a clash between his personal principles and the ruling."

You know, I've met Chad, and I know him, albeit indirectly. Somehow, I doubt he's deeply conflicted over this. If he was deeply conflicted, he'd indicate, you know, something along the lines of, "Though I took an oath or vow, I find I cannot uphold it. Therefore I must resign that post."

I'll acknowledge there is no direct quote in this editorial, and the writer has concluded from whatever comments he made that he will not uphold his oath to obey the law if it comes down to it. Some of us have a problem with that -- note my blog name, for example.

It is hypocritical to take an oath saying you will uphold the law and then make it clear you will not uphold it. So, if the editorial writer is calling him a hypocrite (which was one of Jesus' favorite words), I can't disagree with that assessment.

Oh, and his "good reason" for not abandoning the post? My guess would be the free health insurance that comes with being a board member. Cynical speculation on my part, I know, but...

By the same token, BLT makes the claim that the editorial writer hasn't interviewed Vegas. You don't know that, either, while you castigate the Californian. Perhaps they have. Clearly he's had ample space to air his views in the pages of the paper and on the airwaves, locally. I'd have to say, based on what I've read and heard from broadcasts that his worldview and mine don't agree, in the slightest, on matters such as "intelligent design," global warming, the posting of "In God We Trust," and several other topics. How many more interviews do you have to have?

He is just another self righteous pin head who is committed to slammin his personal agenda down the throat of the public ...   he should step down and do his preaching from his pulpit.