This decision by the State Supreme Court  has such deep and basic human morality elements, and that it flies in the face of the will of the people of the State of California, it must put elected officials in a terrible dilemma.  Pharmacists across the country have been battling the challenge to their basic understanding of life and death when asked to dispense drugs that kill unborn developing babies.  When courts wrongly decide issues that go beyond the bounds of just "the law" into the realms of life and death and what has been considered sinful behavior for millennia, it tears the fiber of our society apart.  As a reporter, noholds, you have the right to ask questions of public officials, but reasonable wisdom would seem to require wisdom that considers the great spiritual and emotional impact that these activist, sometimes called evil, courts have made on all of us.  God forgive us and judges who have lost their moral bearings through their perverted understanding of constitutional law and produced this mess.

Didn't take long for the moral superiority to come a-calling to this thread. I don't care what your morals are, Lois is right that the double-speak by an elected official is quite tiresome. It seems to have become the standard among certain public figures and we should be calling on them whenever it happens; regardless of our personal feelings about the subject at hand. I'll tell you one thing, I have high respect for someone who answers truthfully instead of doing the verbal two-step. Even a simple "I don't know" to a question that they don't have the answer to is a lot better than double-speak.

"Pharmacists across the country have been battling the challenge to their basic understanding of life and death when asked to dispense drugs that kill unborn developing babies." 

Nothing says gay marriage more than abortion or birth control arguments. The sanctimonious crassness of comments like these are really something to read. When did America decide to return to Salem for some Crucible action over being different from the herd?

I always find it troublesome to read posts on this site invoking general terms like American morality. What is American morality, honestly? Is it not morally reprehensible in America to have nearly 50 million people without health care? Or, how about allowing health care bills to wipe out family savings and force bankruptcy even when you had insurance? Is it a high moral standard that allows America to have the highest percentage of people incarcerated in the world? Is it morally commendable for law enforcement and business to profile select groups of people based on ethnicity or cultural preferences? Is it moral to have men earn 25% more than women for doing the same job with the same qualifications? Is it moral to have such huge discrepancies in equipment, supplies and educator talent between schools in differing neighborhoods? Is America the most moral nation in the world when it allows the most children in the industialized world to die every year as a result of gun violence? Veritas88, morality has nothing to do with this law. It is a matter of contracts and benefits being denied to more than 10% of our total population, which the court has rightly determined was an infringement of Constitutional rights. 

Too bad our local government leadership seems to think they know what is best on so many issues while state law means nothing down here. We learned that from our local Sheriff over the medical marijuana law that the voters in California passed, but would not be allowed to practice in this county.  We kill more pets  than any other county  in California, and state law or mandates haven't moved any more Kern County money into the Animal Control world.  I guess we're learning it again on this issue.

After all, local government has done so much for everyone in this town. We see the highest pollution levels with the highest  air related diseases and ailments in the state. Kern County is among the worst  for school test score performance in the state. Income on average is well below the state average  while unemployment is always much higher than the state average. Our local housing crisis with the equity collapse is one of the worst in the nation. I find it outrageous that some elected officials actually think they can pick and choose which laws they get to enforce, and when!

This is actually quite simple.  It is the Supreme Court that interprets the constitution.  It does not need to be unaminous.  It only takes a majority, which this ruling has.  Therefore, our county clerk will have to obey a court order or step down.  It really is just that simple. 

Why was there a populace vote on this issue?

DCS, it was because an initiative was put forth, and the majority of Califonians who voted in that election voted for it.  HOWEVER, that proposition only barred the state from recognizing same gender marriages from other states.  It did NOT prevent the state of California from performing them.  This law became a statute.  However, the constitution trumps statutes if the supreme court rules that it is in violation of the state constitution.  Which is why there is a new move to add an ammendment to our state constitution that would eliminate this ruling.  The problem (and danger) is that this would set a dangerous precedent, as the constitution in a republic like ours is supposed to guarantee rights (and add to them), not take them away (which this would do following the court ruling).  We are a republic, not a majority rule democracy, where civil liberties are supposed to trumkp democratic whim.  Besides, public opinion has shifted dramatically since that last proposition passed on the issue of same gender marriage. 

Ann Barnett's double-speak is why the Supreme Court had the marriage case in the first place.  Her ambivalence about knowing the law, her duties and telling the truth as an elected officer of the state is why the Supreme Court ruled as it did.

She can do her job, or resign.

When she resigns, she can run for another office where her personal beliefs can be expressed in carrying out her job - like the legislature, the court, or even Governor.  As a county clerk she doesn't have a choice of laws she will, or will not follow.  She certainly needs to know how to respond to public inquiries by answering questions and being truthful.

Two weeks after the court decision and with an unambiguous memo from the Office of Vital Records at the state level makes her responses just plain incompetence.

“It was not unanimous. There were dissenting opinions on the issue of whether the court has authority to legislate this matter.” “At this point, it’s premature for me to [allow gay marriage].”

The court doesn't "legislate" matters.  A county clerk does not determine what is constitutional.

My advice to Ann?  Start looking for another job.

Sounds like there is a mole working for the Clerk. If this is supposed to be a confidential meeting, the clerks' office may need to do some housekeeping.

And if Ann can't follow the law, no matter how idiotic or short-lived, because of personal beliefs, she needs to resign. I would.

EDIT:Of course, this assumes there is no stay.

If I do not follow the law~ I suffer the consequences. Even from laws I find "morally " objectionable.

Thank you linfestyp  --  but what I was getting at was that same sex marraige is so "outside the box" that somebody, or some body of people, recognized that it required more than simply an interpretation of the constitutionality of it. This was a whole new issue, and they realized it needed to be voted on.

  Then the vote is overuled?  It doesn't make good sense.

  The powers and principalities behind this mess must be well pleased with all the strife and division this is causing.

  Redifining Holy Matrimony to include "same sex" marraige is an affront to the fact that marraige is supposed to be a reflection of the relationship between Christ and His bride (the church)

 Sadly, it really is a reflection of what has been going on in the body of Christ for hundreds of years. Denominations within the Body are not from the Lord and are a picture  of spiritual homosexuality.(edit -homosectuality) Baptists only associate with baptists , etc.

  We will do better. Christ prayed for unity in His church and He will accomplish this Himself in these last days. 

I'm with LDF.  She can do her job or resign.

.

I understand that she's surrounded in Kern County by entrenched bigotry.  I can understand if she wants to take an unpaid leave of absense instead, if she thinks the CA Supreme Court will reverse itself following the November election--but I doubt that's going to happen.

DCS, stop confusing religious marriage and legal marriage. It's really the whole heart of this controversy: people unable (or unwilling) to distinguish between a religious marriage (bound by the church's rules) and a legal marriage (a contract between two people that affords them certain rights and responsibilities under the law of the country).

It's a common enough fault, Schwaine.  Apparently Barnett can't tell the difference either, and she's in the business. 

Shwaine  --  You're missing my point.  If the Church, the Body of Christ, had not divided up into denominations, I don't  believe we would be having  this discussion right now.

So it's all the fault of schismatics and heretics like Buffoo?

.

Now you see what I applaud the recent schism in the Anglican/Episcopalian sect over ordination of gays.  The more they divide against each other, the fewer of them will fight progress.

.

In fact, that's probably the reason the world has *HAD* progress.  It's largely due to Martin Luther, bless his anti-Semitic heart.

DCS, if that was your point, then I refer you to a civics class where you will learn exactly why our founding fathers believed so strongly in seperating church issues from state (legal) issues.

Random  -- I don't expect you to understand this but there is an ongoing love affair between Christ and His Bride. The things we get right are reflected in the natural , and the things we get wrong are also reflected in the natural.   IT'S ALL ABOUT JESUS.  We the Church are more responsible than unbelievers for the direction this world goes. It's a sad commentary, but true.

RF~ I really like that Martin Luther guy myself~ what courage he had to have,thinking for himself.Plus translating Latin into German can not have been  much fun

Shwaine  --  You're still not getting it. There is no separation. The whole world is in His hands. 

Obviously, you are not interested in a discourse DCS. That is fine. You are entitled to your beliefs. Please have the decency of allowing the rest of us to express our beliefs as well. That is part of having free will after all.

Dcs, then who was God rooting for in the French Huguenot wars, and why?

dcs, I don't expect you to understand this, but the United States of America is not an arm of the Christian church, however you may see it.  As far as governing the country is concerned, *NONE* of it is "about Jesus."

.

Thank Zeus.

I hope Anne Barnett abides by her personal beliefs because then she'll get fired and someone else will get her job who is more deserving and thankful.

Not how it works, h&f.  If she abides by her personal beliefs she'll *RESIGN* her job.  If she waits to be fired, she's placing her job ahead of her beliefs.

Ditto Sage  --  He is a true hero. Him and the thousands that gave their lives during the reformation. Nola Scriptora (probably spelled wrong) but it means the Bible alone is the ultimate authority. No more State "Church" with a man as its head making the rules instead of Christ. No more "church" yeilding the sword.

10-4 Shwaine  --  allow me the same.

DCS and Veritas:

I have no idea of Barnett's religious affiliations or even her ideas on the morality or lack thereof re: gay marriage.
But I think we all have a very clear idea of unwillingness to let her constituents know where she stands on this issue, even in the face of a Supreme Court decision that may change how her office does business in the very near future.

As I pointed out to her during that interview, this question has been asked of politicians and political candidates from the President of the U.S.  on down. Voters want to know how their elected officials feel about gay marriage. It's a perfectly legitimate question to ask and if she were running for office right now, we'd ask her as well as her opponents and voters would take their answers into consideration at the voting booth.

All of which is to reiterate that I believe her refusal to answer  is unacceptable.

I'm not going to debate the morality or religious aspects of this issue. The Supreme Court made a ruling (which was based on  gay couples having children and the need to give those family units equal legal standing with hetero families, as I understand it) and I wanna know how my local elected official plans to implement that ruling.

Noholdsbarred  --  I think we can all take a pretty good guess as to Barnett's religious convictions. I think she's between a rock and a hard place and I sympathize with her.

  The Bible tells us to obey the laws of the land, but it also tells us to decide for ourselves whether it is right to obey God or Man (When Peter and John were ordered not to preach in the name of Jesus)   --- So with this marraige issue, for us Christians, it's coming to that point for some.

I hope she steps aside soon, then.  I'm with Lois on this--she's not doing her religion or her office any favors by avoiding the question.  Her faith and her professionalism are *BOTH* lacking.

Pup, you might try reading the very recent

report on our Animal Control department. This group seems to think the county seriously underfunds the department based on the numbers of strays admitted to the facilities.

Cheers to Gavin Newsome, a man who was vindicated by the *CONSERVATIVES* on the California Supreme Court.

.

Y'know, Pax, if you wanted to prop up the sagging pew count in your church, you might offer special same-sex wedding rates to former priests.  Just a suggestion.  But make sure their potential spouses are above the age of consent, I don't think your organization could financially bear yet *ANOTHER* round of court-ordered payoffs.

Let's see here. Ann Barnett will only follow those laws and court decisions that she personally agrees with.

Yet the rest of us have to obey laws whether we agree with them or not. Obviously Ms. Barnett is above the law

and the rest of us are not? I sense a certain Kern Countyish disconnect here. Ann should resign as laws and court

decisions mean nothing to her. She is a law unto herself.

This has all the earmarks of something that will end in a law suit costing Kern County a lot of bux. I guess even

the County Counsel's office can't explain the obvious to Ann. When our taxes go up when someone wins a law

suit against the County (and rest assured they will win), we can all thank Ms. Barnett.

This happens a lot in Kern County. Some branch of the county government does something that is blatently

illegal and the County loses a law suit and has to pay a lot of money. Deja vu all over again.

        & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;       &nbs p;         ;                 & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;       &nbs p;         ;                 & nbsp;       &n bsp;       Carlos Vidal

Pretty funny Random  -- you ought to moonlight writing  Christian neighbor jokes for the Simpsons. ( whats his name?)

As a human element to this entire debate, I wanted to share what it is like to watch the arguments and statements being made as a gay man.   This has been an extremely emotional time because as a 26 year old professional, I'm busy with my life as are all Americans.  My time is spent at my job teaching history, at the gym lifting weights and in my free time learning foreign languages. I take a large portion of my paycheck helping out my mom, donating free time assisting students and when I grab a free moment, reading and listening to political discourse as that is what my BA was in. 

Since I was a kid, I've been called a faggot, had rocks thrown at my head, been told I was sick, informed I was going to hell and generally told the choices I had made put me on the side of evil.  I made a choice to be a teacher. I made a choice to coach track.  I made a choice to support my family.  At no point did I wake up and say, I think today I'll be gay. 

As someone who studies history and law, it is emotionally unnerving that religious beliefs are being legitimately offered as a counterpoint to law and rules.   Seriously, we are at this point in history where Americans are still saying that Christian is a viable substitute for the word American?  Please refer to Ancient Rome and examine what happened to those who were persecuted for being outside the norm.

Ms. Barnett has a responsibility as an American to perform her job to the best of her ability. She exists in the government, which is based entirely on the support and belief in the strength of the Constitution. If ambiguity is allowed in support of the Constitution, it weakens America.  Ms. Barnett is providing an emotional affront to those of us who are not just gay, but those of us who are American.  Readily I admit I'm biased, but I've never fully grasped this argument.  How do we deny equal rights to legal age Americans?   We support civil rights in this country; we believe in freedom to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. My happiness is working hard in my job, paying taxes, supporting my family and country and eventually, building my own family with another man who has the same goals. 

Ms. Barnett should give us the respect of intelligence to tell us her position or acknowledge the role of her position in the government.  She either resigns based on personal belief or does her job correctly and appropriately.  There is no middle.  What if the police decided to interpret the laws for themselves?  "Officer, how fast was I going?" "I can't really say but you're definitely receiving a fine."

I look forward to a happier year, when we laud those who work hard and are good people, not those who are exactly like us, regardless of contribution.

I suppose the confusion in Ms. Barnett's mind is between law and morality. They are two different things.

Each of us has our own version of morality. But there is only one body of laws. In America we are all free to

practice our different moralities. But we all have to obey the same laws. Evidently this important distinction has

not entered Ann's mind. She confuses her own private sense of morality with the law and thinks that her sense of

what is moral trumps the law of the land. She is also quite imperious in her rather chop logical explanation of

what she would have her office do in the case of gay marriage.

So the big question in my mind is what is the recall proceedure for Ms. Barnett? I think it is time

for her to retire, gracefully or ungracefully.We can't have someone in her position that makes up

her own laws.

The best way to judge whether it's a question of morality or not is to swap "interracial marriage" for "same-sex marriage" in the question.  If her personal beliefs led her to refuse marriage licenses to black/white couples, how long would she last in the job? 

.

Dunno, dcs.  I've never watched more than five minutes of "The Simpsons" at a time.  Ned something?

In response to noholdsbar:
The Supreme Court made a ruling (which was based on  gay couples having children and the need to give those family units equal legal standing with hetero families, as I understand it)

 I think the Supreme Court  has made a good ruling. A  family made up of a loving gay  couple with or without children is no different than a family made up of a heterosexual couple, with or without children.  I'm glad the court is giving gays the same respect and rights.

Many officials such as Ann Barnett will have a hard time with this if it is against their personal beliefs. They hopefully will change their beliefs when they see that the world is a better place when gays are not being discriminated against.

What I think will happen is the county clerk will do her job or resign and the next clerk will do the job, gay marriage will go through, and the world will go on.

Lois Henry & Marylee Shrider both give diffirent views to stories. It is very rare for me to agree w/ anyone out of Ms. Shrider, while for the most part I agree w/ Ms. Henry on most of the issues.

Because the "way, truth and life" was perverted by an opportunist named Saul of Tarsus?

.

Just a thought.  Jesus didn't have any problem with gays.  He went out of his way to praise one.

Actually, banning same-sex marriage is *EXACTLY* like banning interracial marriage.  The same arguments (and the same opponents) are lined up against both.   The Klan, for example.

.

One of those arguments is the "slippery slope" argument which can also be used against *HETEROSEXUAL* marriage.

Another, believe it or not, was the "but they can't have children" argument.

I wrote  about this issue a while back and we finally ran it last issue.   Feel free to check it out.

http://www.bakotopia.com/ho...

I am always astounded at the way those opposed to gay marriage keep bringing up the phrase "judicial tyranny". I doubt that any of them have actually read the California Supreme Court's opinion.  Would someone opposed to gay marriage please read the opinion and explain where the reasoning is faulty?  I haven't seen a single blog comment explaining the majority's legal errors.  In fact, the opposition to gay marriage seems to boil down into two groups: (1) those whose religious feelings are offended by gay marriage, and (2) those who view marriage as a toy that only heterosexual couples should get to play with. 

I would point out that the California legislature - the elected representatives of the people - has twice passed gay-marriage bills that have twice been vetoed by the governor.  Yet I have yet to hear about "executive tyranny".

It is clear that the people of California are closely divided on the issue.  Thirty years ago any talk of gay marriage would have been laughed at.  In 2000 Proposition 22 passed with a 61.2% majority.  The poll quoted by paxchristi shows a 56.2% majority for the constitutional amendment. That's a drop of 5% in 8 years.  Even if the the amendment passes, the matter will surely be brought up again, and my crystal ball says that each time it is brought up the number in favor of marriage will increase and the number opposed will decrease.  If not today, sometime in the very near future gay marriage will become "the will of the majority". What will the nay sayers say then?

I personally am straight, but I've got gay friends just as I've got hetero friends, and when the sh*t goes down, I would go to bat for them just as I would any of my friends,  just because of the fact that they're my friends. We've all got acquaintances, and some of us are lucky enough to have FRIENDS, and I am never one to get into the Gay/Straight debate, but I do believe that when it all comes down to it, there's only one GREATER POWER that we will need to answer to, and will bravely do so when that time comes....But until then, we've all got our own right to be, marry, or lay with whomever we want. From a guy with friends "on both sides of the fence" take my word for it, "gayness" is not contagious. What bothers me the most is that public servants, elected or not, I thought were supposed to be impartial, but I don't care how much smoke she blows, or how many bushes she beats around, she has her opinion, and has made it public in not so many words, (or maybe in so many words in this case). Now people that usually feel as she does, tend to prejudge people that "look gay" or "speak gay," so how can we be assured that this lady is doing her job fairly, honestly, and to the best of her ability? SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT COME RE-ELECTION TIME, I'D SAY.

"Straight, but not narrow."

egalindo, Senator Craig also insists he is straight...

And *DEFINITELY* not narrow. 

check it out OLD blue...I have read tons of blogs where you have commented on, and this is the first time I agree with you on something..even though we weren't there, we are both on the same page as to what Senator Craig was doing in that restroom.. that is however, where things in common stop. 

It is biggot, prejudiced, narrow minded jerks like you that put that big black spot on this great city and county's police department and sheriff's department. My wife and I were out one evening meeting some friends when two of your "brothers in blue" approached our friends that were sitting on the hood of their car finishing a soda which the "officer of the law" erroneously assumed to be an alcoholic drink. OK, honest mistake, but when he started talking to my friends, he made his assumption and immediately adressed our friends as "sweetie" and asked which one was the "girlfriend".  He then proceeded to ask them if they minded if he searched them, or would they rather him call a female officer to assist. Sounds to me like he was more for the "search" than they would've been. What's funny though, is that at first, the officer thought one of my buddies must have looked "gang related" because first thing he asked him was "which Bar- E- O are you from?" (lol, trying to make it sound as lame as he did). So apparently he looked more like one of your guys' famous "gang bangers" than a homosexual..Wow!!! 2 assumptions just based on the "officer of the law's" own prejudiced outlook in 2 minutes..Who would've thought?

Any way, just a little experience there about this wonderful city and their "great protectors"..lol

Now as anything, I know the great majority of officers are unlike you and these 2 clowns, but it doesn't take much to put a big ugly spot and a lot of un-trust in what should be the public's first line of defense outside of their family and gunsafe

Geez, egalindo, chill out. I have nothing to do with the officers you are talking about.

And by the way Vat-Oh, did the officers find anything illegal?

And to think you got all fired up because you insisted you were straight and I mentioned Senator Craig...