After listening to a local extremist radio hostess and her guest this morning express the view that most of the marriages performed through the Kern County Clerk's Office were to Hispanics, I'm convinced that Ann Barnett has taken this opportunity to kill two birds of differing feathers with one stone. She can now deny two minority groups the ability to have the civil service marriage ceremony performed and each can now blame the other for the loss. A strategic wedge driven home by a civil servant who appears frightened by the concept of equality.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that comment adam....

That is an interesting observation Adam. I am curious as to the facts regarding the sited reasons for stopping the ceremonies.

I should dust off my license and take an ad out in TBC.

 Adam- just when I was struggling with what to say, you said it all. Thank you.

Sounds like Bako will be losing a lot of money from marriage licences, hotels, catering,  flowers, suits ... because people will be getting married elsewhere.  Did anybody see The Simpsons episode where Springfield allowed gay marriages to boost up the economy?

1)  Budget concerns:  Even though the county is facing a shortfall, isn't the county fully funded through June 30?  Or have departments just gone through an emergency, last minute cut?  Hmmm....haven't seen any reports on this.  Doesn't the county charge a fee to solemnize a marriage?  What is that fee and what is the revenue-cost ratio?  Will positions be cut as a result of this elimination of services? 

2)  Increasing security for elections?  Again, why NOW?  The last election was just held and I have never heard of any security issues.  Does Ms. Barnett think the sheriff's department has been doping shoddy work as of late?  Have marriage ceremonies been held in the rooms where the ballots have been counted (and during the ballot counting process)? 

Nope!  It's to prevent having to prevent same gender marriages.  What's incredible here is tyhe obvious contempt Barnett shows for the public in thinking anyone is stupid enough to even believe these excuses.

Barnett is being ridiculous.  When gays got married at SF it got really boring. Watching professional, middle class couples, who were getting married after being together for years, couldn't compete with the one night marriages of Brittney Spears and other celebs.

Springfield isn't exactly a model city to emmulate. Please remember, that our illustrious county will no longer "officiate" a ceremony. But they will still issue the licenses. This isn't that huge of a blow to Gay-Kind. But it certainly paints a disturbing picture of our County Leadership.

Trust me, we will still get married. As for the other stuff, I foresee many-a hard line drawn by local business owners who will, in fact choose not to do business in association with gay marriage. These businesses will be more or less "outted" as the hate-mongering hetero-based businesses they are. We will blog about them and collectively we will begin to shift our monies to those businesses that DO support our rights and freedoms.

Some local businesses may perceive no change at all, other may feel the fickle turn of the gay-driven economy they currently enjoy. Whose to say?

The County Clerk is ex-officio the "Commissioner of Civil Marriages", and is authorized to deputize others to actually perform the ceremonies. The deputized persons do not have to be county employees, but can be anyone willing to take the required oath.    In many of the counties they have "Deputy Commissioner for a Day" programs where a friend or relative of the couple to be married  is deputized for a day so that they can conduct the ceremony.

This morning I went over to the County Clerk's Office to check into the process for applying to be a Deputy Commissioner of Civil Marriages.  I was told that the commissions for all of the existing Deputy Commissioners were being revoked and that Ms. Barnett was not going to issue any new commissions.   This means that the only persons authorized to conduct civil marriages here in Kern County are the Judges and Commissioners of the various Courts.  I would point out that they are too overwhelmed with court work to have this burden imposed upon them.

If Ms. Barnett does not wish the employees of her office to conduct marriages, then good faith requires that she appoint independent Deputy Commissioners to perform the service.  I have written to the County Counsel about this matter.  If Ms. Barnett continues to follow this course of conduct, a lawsuit may be in order.

I maybe totally wrong here and if I am somebody got married and divorced ( and paid for both) illegally. I have a Minsters license and as long as the couple have a license to marry,it is valid. There are several local churches that will conduct ceremonies,but it is clear Ms. Barnett is trying her best to circumvent the law.

One of my many weddings was done that way. 

I think they're talking about marriages done *IN* the clerk's office, with them certifying, as being necessarily non-religious.

I see,still  tap dancing as fast as we can Ms. Barnett?

Can't wait to see Lois Henry's response to Barnett's "quick fix" in the stopping of performing the ceremonies. Barnett is really behind this all the way - and Adam Payne is right.

Well, we can all take consolation that the city and county is still in the water park and river walk business.

Maybe the clerks office just doesn't want to be bothered with a gaggle of protesters carrying signs against sodomy.

and again I say..go get married somewhere else..simple as that..its not enough this gets discussed on just one blog ..it keeps getting brought up over and over and over..see what i mean about you guys just wanting to keep stirrin the pot..chances are you wouldnt even go down there to get married.. if you have any real love for your mate..unless your just a cheap skate...the marriage ceremony is something to be cherished...

if all you want is a bubble gum machine ceremony..phhhttt... Im thinkin you dont realllly love and respect your sig other as much as you prodessing to the world....

just  a question but how many of those folks out there discussing this matter are even planning on getting married through the new gay rights descion as soon as the door opens??Or are you here just for the sake of an argument??

As long as you say that to *EVERY* couple applying for a license, Siouxcity, no problem.  Everybody gets them or nobody does.

.

First time it turns out Barnett performs a heterosexual marriage ceremony at the office, it's lawsuit time.

.

Me, I'm straight and already married. 

With all respect, Sioux, you criticize us for being here for the sake of argument, yet YOU argue and battle with us every opportunity you get.  You do the same thing.

Those of us who are interested in equal rights for everyone are interested out of principle.  I thought having principles was a GOOD thing.

In my case, one of the principles I am hanging on to is preserving whatever remains of the idea that being conservative meant freedom and less government interference in our lives.

The difference is Im not going over this whole issue time and time again..when that blog burns out I dont go start another one along the same lines just to have the same thing repeat its self...over and over..I brought this same thing up in one other blog and this one..... Thats it...you dont seem to even read my post other than picking it apart so you can criticize me..you are missing my whole point on them getting married some where else than the courthouse so they need to let it go..none of us can do it anymore..so drop it..maybe go outside..or better yet..go look for a place to get married..

 this is the last ime Im going to say it because its obviousley not doing any good..GROWUP you got your way for a couple of months so grab ur partner slap a big juicy wet one on them and say I do..

SOMEPLACE ELSE than Ms Barnetts office Geez Louise

Ann Barnett must resign.

Her hatred of gay people is now costing straight people the ability to marry at the court house.

Many people cannot afford, or do not want to marry elsewhere. Some people need to marry quickly, such as military people on leave.

Her excuses are lies, out and out lies. Ann Barnett is a disgrace to the good people of Kern county.

The honorable thing for her is to resign the post she cannot no longer perform. Since her personal beliefs contradict her duties she must leave.

She however, want to retire at taxpayer expense, so she will not leave with out being pushed.

Please support marriage at the court house and write the county supervisors to demand she resign or retire early.

Thank you

I suspect that the "honorable thing" is not something Ms. Barnett is capable of.

Why is it she has to hate gay people?  A difference of opinion, ideals or values doesn't have to lead to hate.  The people who accuse hatred every time someone disagrees with them are childish.

She apparently wants to treat gay people and straight people differently *AS A PUBLIC SERVANT.*  If it doesn't come from hatred of them, she's got some 'splainin' to do to set us straight.  Until then, it's a good working hypothesis.

.

I personally don't care much about her hatred--it will get her re-elected in Kern County--as long as she does the damned job, too.

dgrealish

I would rather feel hatred, or have someone feel hatred toward me, than to feel nothing. Apathy is, to me, far worse. I liken it to the old analogy: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Ann is definately part of the problem.

It doesn't have to come from hatred.  It comes from a differing point of view about marriage.  Having overseen thousands of marriages,  perhaps she feels she's protecting the sanctity of marriage in her own way.  

Miles, you feel not allowing gays to marry is a problem, others don't.  It's not apathy or hatred.  It's just a different feeling.

Who says Barnett hates gays?  I'm noticing more and more that when a person can no longly defend their position logically they turn to the H word. 

Why is it that if I don't agree with someone,  I'm a hater?

i don't recall Ann making any kind of statement that can be construed as hatred of anything or anybody. That's quite a conclusion to jump to. She's not breaking any law. Nor does she state the decision is entirely her own. As she says, weddings are a discretionary part of the clerks office. If you want it otherwise, change the law.

That's just the thing.  She hasn't made a statement at all.  She's dodged the question and, it appears, lied to cover it.

.

If she's not hiding hatred, what *IS* she hiding?  Incompetence?  Poor management skills?

I agree, calling Barnett a hater on the grounds of this alone is too big a leap for me.  I disagree with her, but that doesn't make her a gay hater.

When I was younger, I read a book called The Phantom Tollbooth.  In it, when a person jumped to conclusions, they actually jumped to an island called Conclusions.  Ah, if only that were the case concerning Ann Barnett.

If only she should jump to an island called Conclusions.

.

She's hiding *SOMETHING*, and I'm betting its a deep-seated dislike for gays at the very least.

Conclusions

"That's just the thing.  She hasn't made a statement at all.  She's dodged the question and, it appears, lied to cover it. If she's not hiding hatred, what *IS* she hiding?  Incompetence?  Poor management skills?"

For a second I thought you were talking about the Obamas again..My bad??

You are entitled to your own conclusions.

In the late 50's, in Little Rock, Arkansas, the governor closed down the schools to all rather than allow them to be integrated.  I see a historical parallel.  Something similar happened earlier in Virginia.

Then you're not paying attention, scr.  Obviously.

Maybe Ann Barnett's office would have the funding to hire lots of people if she hadn't wasted millions of dollars on electronic voting machines that hadn't even been certified when she ordered their purchase.

It's time for Barnett to go. 

Maybe Barnett doesn't "hate" gays, but it goes against her religious beliefs. Either way, she should have stepped down/resigned and let the county go ahead and earn the income from the ceremonies.

According to the Channel 17 website, the reporters from channel 17 have called Barnetts offive over a dozen times over the last 2 weeks trying to talk to her, and she hasn't returned any of their calls.  I understand that a reporter from the Californian was at the clerk's office this morning, but Barnett wouldn't talk to him, so he had to talk to one of the deputy clerks. 

I don't know if Barnett "hates" gay people or not, and I really don't care.  She has stated that she opposes gay marriage, apparently on religious grounds, and has decided to put her religious convictions ahead of her duties as County Clerk. This is wrong. 

Technically, Barnett's office does not have to conduct weddings. However, since Barnett is by reasons of her office as County Clerk, the "Commissioner of Civil Marriages" for Kern County, I believe that she does have an obligation to appoint "Deputy Commissioners of Civil Marriages" to perform this function if she is unwilling to do so herself.  Many of the counties of this state have "Commissioner for a Day" programs that allow friends family to perform the marriage ceremony.  The cost of the program is covered by a modest fee. If Ann Barnett was to immediately institute such a program in place the cancelled program, then she would be showing good faith towards the people of Kern County.  If she doesn't, it confirms that she is putting her religious opinions ahead of her duty to the people of Kern County.

She won't talk to the media because she knows damn well what she is doing is discrimination. It's easier to bury  her head in the dust sand and avoid the issue all together. I mean really, what would her church friends say.

Oh please RF show a sense of humor on occasion..I know you are a witty guy.....gotta gig ya when I can..besides McCain's  party hired me to follow you around and pester you since you dislike him so much..big brother is watching *wink*

You guys weren't expecting anything less from Kern County were you? 

I mean, Lickskillet, Mississippi is more progressive.

Nice try, Barnett. Does she really think the public is that stupid? If it's truly about staff shortages, do like any other business would do and raise the fees to afford or pay for more staff.

Hey Stache:

You know, I'm all for the rights of all individuals to marry whomever they please... but I'd like to point out something: your comments about straight people not being able to get married in the courthouse kinda confused me.

I don't see how this would really make it financially impossible for a straight couple to get married. Most Officiants have reasonable fees, and if you get married in a Church, many times you can make up your own donation amount, which is in turn tax deductable. 

And as for people who need to, "get married fast," well.. those kind of people shouldn't be getting married anyway.  There's a reason why divorce is at such a high rate.. and it's because of people who rush something like marriage.

Gee Fla St Grad, for once you made some sense (last comment)

stick to fluff feelings commentary and not something where hard nos. can be applied........ ergo ...... you lose 

 As far as the "hate" issue goes, I'm so fed-up, frustrated and angry with the whole thing that I'm now to the point in my life that a person is either a Lover, a Hater or an Apathetic Loser. No more middle ground for me. Pick a team and play or get off the flippin' field. I'm sick and tired of passive idiots disguising their motives in PC ambiguity.

It's the same old tired attitude: I don't care what they do as long as I don't have to see it.

Well ya know what? I don't wanna see heteros holding hands, or kissing, or flirting in public. It's just disgusting and should be kept in the privacy of their own homes and away from anywhere public. I certainly don't want my children exposed to that kind of behavior. I dont' want to see hetero weddings, or pictures of engagements; I don't want my media deluged with the continuous onslaught of straight propaganda.

So as far as I'm concerned, get with the program or get off the air. Either you're on my side, or you're my enemy, but you need to stop farting around and just pick a damned side. That way, it is far easier for me (and you) to know who to talk to, where to spend money, where to eat, where to shop, who to buy a home or car from and who to associate with.

Asses off the fence, people!

Choose.

Love me or hate me. Which is it gonna be?

FloridaStateGrad,

The purpose of making the County Clerk the "Commissioner of Civil Marriages" and giving the Clerk the right to name deputies is to allow each county clerk to come up with a system of civil marriage that meets the needs of the people of the county.  Some counties use volunteer "deputies". Some counties have "Deputy for a day" programs. Kern County had neither. Instead persons seeking a civil marriage could have one in a nicely decorated room (holding 15 guests) at the County Clerk's office for a modest fee.

Ann Barnett, in a snit over gay marriage (and if you believe her press release, I have some lots in California City that would be a great buy) has thrown away the entire system without putting anything in to replace it except "go over to the courthouse and try to chase down a judge".  This is just plain wrong.  She has, unilaterally, decided to impose an unjust and unnecessary burden upon those Kern County residents - both gay and straight - who wish to marry after June 13th.

Her action is unjust because it nullifies the intent of the legislature in appointing her "Commissioner of Civil Marriages" in the first place.

Her action poses an unnecessary burden upon the people of Kern County because it would be a trivial matter to set up a system of volunteer Deputy Commissioners or Commissioners for a day.

Anti -- I love how you have now changed your name to  "Progressive"

Just like Demcorats are now Decmocra TICK

Just like Negro became colored, people of color, black, afro-american, then african american

Do you see a pattern here? afro-american to african american and democrat to democratic?

You people are so transparent

Obama makes clothes hangers hang their heads (empty suit reference)

gopherbro - I appreciate your desire to restate your point, but I can assure you: I'm well educated, and I can read (and already have) your original post in which you speak about the "Commissioner of Civil Marriages."  Unfortunately, your most recent point really doesn't answer my questions directed to another person who commented on this blog.

Thank you.

Miles -- thats a good point

Why the  "in your face"  with all this?

But, honestly, do you see the hetero portion of our populace engaging in nearly as much  "in your face" (and I can post pics just like any others) examples of behavior that shoud be private as you do from the  "gay"  contingent?

We need to get back to more of a don't ask, don't tell ethic which worked BTW in the military........ for years

We had people we  "suspected"  in the military, but as long as they did their jobs, who cares?

When we choose to be  "in your face"  with our things that really should be private, we cross the line that brings those of us that would normally be  "middle of the road"  firmly to the other side of that road.

Is  "in your face"  really the way to go?