I guess lying isn't the sin it was when I was a kid.

Great job ,James! The picture is crystal clear to me.

NO NO NO..argghhh I feel like im that christmas movie where the guy keeps living the same day over and over..I clik the link thinkin maybe just maybe ....phhttt

CYA..Gotta GO

I'm glad that we now have the facts to back up the argument.

(My second comment has been edited by myself, because, as Chico should have noted, it wasn't nice)

I will draw alot of  hate for this and be called names, but that's okay. HURRAY FOR ANN BARNETT!  It takes a lot of guts to stand up for your beliefs in this day and time.  I am behind her all the way.  As for the lies, I suspect it was her higher ups that came up with that.  In any event, Ms. Barnett is very special in my book.

Hey vella.. there's nothing wrong for standing up for your beliefs.  However, when you are a Government official, you have absolutely no right to lie or take advantage of your position, for the sake of standing up for what you believe in.

There's a time and a place for Religion.

Agreed Grad.  But don't you think there is a slight possibility she was coerced into using those excuses by others?  I think so. Do you think she would have been allowed to use the real reason for her refusal?  I don't think so.

And, to your last statement....believing the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ is NOT religion.

Ann is married, because it seems to me like she really needs to get laid.

Beautimous......... you have just evinced for all your level of shallowness

Ms. Barnett (and I'm guessing here) has grandchildren you would pine to have..........

Just guessing..........

What a vacuous vapid vitriolic statement from a college grad? Fla State must be proud

You are truly a product of your time

A waste product

Vella, I guess you need a dictionary, because Christianity is indeed a Religion. 

Chico - you're right, it wasn't the best thing I could have said.  I meant it in jest, and nothing more. However, I really don't appreciate your honestly horrible attempt to belittle me with alliteration.  I also don't appreciate your "Holier than Thou" attitude in which you attempt to cast me away as being unintelligent and worthless.  Why don't you spend less time in your attempts to make yourself look better than others, and instead take a more proactive stance.  You could have easily said, "Hey, FloridaStateGrad - that wasn't nice!"  I also enjoy how you base your entire opinion of me based upon one statement.  Way to be a judgemental hack. 

I also love how you assume I'm some bachelor who needs to pine after someone's Grandchildren.  I'm happily married, thanks.

 Ann Barnett must resign or be relieved of her duties immediately. She is not upholding the law. She's pushing her own anti-gay agenda.

If its true then shes exercising her beliefs just like you guys have been wanting to do..(which you got) so wheres the difference?

What law is she not upholding?  Show us.  Do you know there is such a law or are you assuming?  States make laws and County's make policies regarding duties of each office.  If it's no longer the duty of the Clerk's office to perform marriages, that's the end of the story.

What a blessing it is for an elected official to stand their ground concerning their moral and religious beliefs!!

Good for you, Ann, you do not dissapoint those who know and love you, and more importantly you do not dissapoint God!!

Just FYI to those asking if Barnett could have been coerced by "her higher ups." She is an elected official, so her only bosses are the voters of Kern County.  

 Good for you Ann. I for one (and a few here) stand behind you. STOP the liberals and the pro gay mafia! Stand for what you believe in your heart! PC people be damned.

Donnabel, an elected official who puts his or her moral and religious beliefs before the requirements of the law is violating his or her oath of office.  The legislature did not make the 58 County Clerks the only Commissioners of Civil Marriages in the state, with the power of deputization,  for the hell of it. They did so because each Clerk was expected to organize a system of civil marriage adequate for the needs of the county.  In Alpine County, with its very small population, the County Clerk conducts civil marriage ceremonies.  In Tulare County the Clerk and his staff do not conduct ceremonies, instead they appoint temporary Deputy Commissioners of Civil Marriages (Commissioners for a Day)to do so. In San Luis Obispo County volunteers are appointed Deputy Commissioners of Civil Marriages in order to free deputy county clerks for other duties.  It appears that in 57 of the 58 Counties of California there is a working system of civil marriage under the authority of the County Clerk. Only in Kern County has the County Clerk taken the position that her office will not perform marriages and she won't appoint anyone else to do so.  This is a complete and total abuse of discretion on her part.

I missed the e-mails the first time I read the article. The second time around I carefully read this:

From: Glenn Spencer

To: Holly Estes

Subject: RE: Will You Provide Legal Assistance?

Holly, I also left a phone message for Brian, but I imagine he may be very busy right now. Our question is, now that the Supreme Court has refused to stay its decision, will Alliance Defense Fund defend the County Clerk if she ceases performing all marriage ceremonies as of 5:00 pm on June 16th? We have the news media calling for her response, and we need to issue a news release today, but she really needs to be assured of your legal assistance before she speaks to them, as we fully expect to be sued and our own counsel is not being of help. Thanks.

Now, "our own counsel" is a reference to Bernie Barmann and the Kern County Counsels office.  Why is the County Clerk looking for legal representation from a wingnut non-profit?  It can only because Barmann has made it very clear that he does not intend to waste his offices budget on defending the indefensible.

Barnett should not be applauded for halting marriage ceremonies due to her moral values.  Her actions have harmed people.  They have not helped people. If someone handed out marriage certificates to interracial couples when it was illegal for interractial couples to be married then that would be applaudable since it would be promoting equality.  It is a different story when people abide by their morals to make it harder for people to receive equality.

I would like to address the fundamentalist Christians.  If there is a god,  he or she  is too busy to "damn" PC people or feel disappointed by a person's attempt  to violate the rights of others. Stop acting like your religious beliefs make you morally superior to others. Thank god (figuratively), fundamental Christianity is not the official religion in the US.

1. Gay mafia? That sounds awesome.

2. I studied religions for four years in an academic setting. Christianity was an entire year.  It is always amazing to me, literally causes me to blink hard, when Christians throw out the Bible as reason to persecute gays, but ignore any of the 'he among you throw the first", "treat others as you would be treated" and best of all 'all sins are the same in the eyes of god".  Why are you focusing in on homosexuality?  Treat others seems to me that you need to be feeding the homeless, tending to the sick and generally helping the unfortunate. Once you have that tackled and taken care of,  knock yourself out on the gays and anything else you have read in Revelations.  Until then, it seems like you are picking and choosing which rules to follow; ie you are picking the easiest one, exlude a group of people because you think they are powerful enough to bring down your definition of marriage.

While the Bible clearly denounces perversion for exactly what it is in no uncertain terms, anyone feeding at Caesar's table is Caesar's dog and has to eat what's offered or find another line of work.

Its a good thing you guys dont live in Saudl Arabia *smile* Those dang religious fanatics...

(HERALD SUN) TWO men in Saudi Arabia have been sentenced to 7000 lashes each after being convicted of sodomy and have received their first round of punishment in public, a newspaper said today.

The men, who were not identified, were meted out an unspecified number of lashes in public in the the southwestern city of Al-Bahah on Tuesday evening, the Al-Okaz daily reported.

They were then returned to prison where they are to be held until the full punishment is completed, the newspaper added, without saying how many sessions this would involve.

Homosexual acts are illegal in Saudi Arabia, which metes out strict punishment based on sharia, or Islamic law.

 

Good point  Sioux~ so we should model ourselves on our enemies? Naw just try to put me in a burka( no disrespect for any burka wearing ladies out there,but it just ain't my style!)...we are better than that.

Hey Sioux.. that's all the more reason to keep Religion out of Government!

I swear, many of the Christian fundamentalists in this country want a Theocracy..

You totally missed the reason for my post Florida (as usual) You should be grateful you are allowed to live in a country like America ...religion included..you get down on christianity and this article shows you that there are far more worse things out there..AND AGAIN..you guys are never happy...you live to bi**h and complain..

I'm confused, being a blonde and all, but wasn't it right here that I heard (multiple times) that the government should stay out of marriage?   And now you're howling because government is staying out of marriage?

hahahah I LUB YOU NANCY

SiouxCityRanch, it just goes to show that oil is more important than human rights. Even with most of the box-cutting fanatics from 9/11 tied to Saudi Arabia they remain our government's closest Arab ally.  Saudi Arabia, the place where Harum Scarum is more than an Elvis Presley movie.

Someone mentioned ealier that Ann should resign or be fired....Why Should she???? she is after all following the will of the people... remember that prop 22 was approved by THE MAJORITY of voters before 6 puny little individuals with illusions of grandeur dictated otherwise ? I for one am glad that FINALLY someone i voted for is actually doing something that trully represents me.  I personally don't have a problem with gay marriage, but as much as liberals whine about insensitivity and hatred, I do find that "they" are incredibly intolerant of those who disagree with them. To me they are millitant in the way they go about their bussiness and beliefs or lack of beliefs...whatever the case may be.

As far as the Californian is concerned, they should cease to be called a newspaper ...as long as they keep publishing their "opinion" rather report facts... In some cases I feel that I am reading an advertisement supplement for the liberal agenda....

If Barnett is truly standing up for what she believes in, shouldn't she simply resign on moral grounds? As an elected official she has no right to impose her beliefs on anyone. I may not agree with gay marriage, but I do believe that no one is above the law. If you believe that the law is unjust, by all means protest it, stand up and be counted, don't hide behind some loophole or worse lie to the pubic that feeds you.

No she should not resign on moral grounds, I voted her in based on those to begin with... The problem lately is that many elected officials lack that moral fiber....Like I said before, she is one of the very few who is actually doing what she was voted in to do.

You claim that you don't have a problem with gay marriage, but your conduct and temperament makes it very obvious that you DO.

You make another very popular but erroneous claim too about "majority vote," so let me spell it out for you:

THE

MAJORITY OF VOTERS

ARE NOT

REPEAT: ARE NOT

PERMITTED

TO VOTE

IN LAWS

THAT

DEPRIVE PEOPLE

OF THEIR

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Hey Sam Heath,

The feeding at Caesar's table....Caesar's dog quote was great.  Nothing came up when I googled it. Is it original?

Ann Barnett wasn't  standing up for her morals.  She was standing up for her chances of getting reelected in a homophobic county. 

Kern County has a policy that prohibits the use of county work hours and resources for personal use.  Ann received a legal opinion on civil ceremonies from County Counsel for her personal issue, dissatisfied with the official response she used county work time and resources (Staff, internet, computers, etc.) to further pursue a personal agenda rather than follow the County's personnel policies that could address her moral dilemma.  Will the County discipline her for this intentional violation and insist she repay the County for misspending the People’s money that she was elected to safeguard?  An interesting question that requires further investigation.

Hey Sioux - I'm a Christian who's pleased to live in America, but I believe fully the principles which our founding fathers formed this country on, and Christianity was NOT one of those principles.

With that, I have a meeting to prepare for.

 These are certainly interesting times. Michael Richards, a city attorney, arrested and has since resigned, Ray Watson under suspicion of extortion with links to our own governor, Harvey. And now Ann Barnett is being outted as the anti-equal rights clown that she apparently is.

I've lived here going on 5 years now and I have to say that I'm not impressed with the manner in which our "leadership" presents itself and goes about it's business.

We have a great country, and great systems in place. But these systems are like computers- only as good as the people who use them. I feel like the system in Kern County is run by a bunch of poser-polititians who have ears and eyes for only the voices and signs closest to them.

BTW: The next Gay Mafia meeting will be held at my house, this Saturday at 7 PM. We will discuss amendments to the Gay Agenda as well as the numbers from our lates recruitment efforts (enrollment is up!). Finger sandwiches and cocktails will follow with napkin folding demonstrations by guest Christopher Lowel.

The people of California already made it clear that they DO NOT WANT same sex marriage.  The liberal court decided we don't know what we want, and that they know better!!  BOO!!  It's the rights of the majority of the people being trampled by the court.  What Ann Barnett did was not only make a perfectly legal decision not to perform marriages, but she also is upholding the choice of the majority of Californians.  Good for you, Ann!!!  I would have done the same thing.

Let me spell it out for you:

THE

MAJORITY OF VOTERS

ARE NOT

REPEAT: ARE NOT

PERMITTED

TO VOTE

IN LAWS

THAT

DEPRIVE PEOPLE

OF THEIR

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

I believe that Ann should either step down voluntarily (you know, to spend more time with her family), or be relieved of her duties, since she is unwilling to fulfill the requirements of her position. This is very similar to pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control or anything else due to religious reasons. If you don't want to do the job because of your morals, find another job and let somebody else do it.

I don't care who marries who!!! It's none of my business! I married the person I wanted to marry - done! For an ELECTED official who's salary we pay, she is wrong to change the "rules" to suit her own beliefs! I have many friends on both sides of the aisle - to each his/her own as far as I'm concerned!!!

Actually, I don't really care if she performs them or not.  Heck, *I'll* get ordained and perform the ceremonies if there's a backlog.  In fact, I think I might already be ordained. 

http://www.themonastery.org...

 "The people of California already made it clear that they DO NOT WANT same sex marriage.  The liberal court decided we don't know what we want, and that they know better!!  BOO!!  It's the rights of the majority of the people being trampled by the court.  What Ann Barnett did was not only make a perfectly legal decision not to perform marriages, but she also is upholding the choice of the majority of Californians.  Good for you, Ann!!!  I would have done the same thing."

Granny- you still fail to understand that just because something is "popular" does not make it right. Witches were burned at stakes because it is what the public wanted. But it wasn't the right thing to do. Also, Anns job is not to uphold what she believes the people want, but to uphold what the law TELLS HER TO. BTW: That "liberal" court was put into position by the voting citizens of California. So that is YOUR liberal court you are refering to.

Ann Barnett needs to be removed from office. End of Story.

And the Judicial group is not legislating from the bench.

The people voted to make marriage between a man and a woman; the courts do not have the authority to say the people know not what they want.

There is nothing in the law definng marriage that takes rights and priviledges away from any group of persons.

Marriage was and is the way to procreation. This cannot happen with same sex unions.

I have no problem with persons wanting a union that allows them to care for each other and have the access allowed to medical and some other services; but when it comes to tax matters unless they are a legally married couple as set forth in the tax laws and laws of the land, then they must file as separate. What other items of public concern are same sex couples denied? Certainly not living together, or dating(?), or having joint savings accounts, nor obtaining mortgages (that they can pay for).

The people of California also voted to end social services to illegal aliens.  The people of California wanted, in essence, hundreds of thousands of children roaming the streets all day, dying of treatable illnesses.  They wanted women in labor to fend for themselves, and their newborns, too.  They wanted to walk past dead people on their way into the hospital.  The court decided the people of California were crazy.  The court was right.

No gopherbro, the dogs feeding at Caesar's table is not original with me but I came across it so many years ago I can't recall the original source.

Barnett representing the will of the majority of the people?

Since when is the majority always right?

Innumerable examples can be given illustrating the flawed will of majorities.

In this case, the court has rightfully declared that the majority will, as evidenced by vote on a referendum measure, is indeed wrong in attempting to deny basic civil and human rights to any citizen.

Sorry fundies, like it or not, you don't get to deny basic rights to anyone of any stripe and as much as it disturbs your pious sensitivities, gays are entitled to the same rights as you.

The state supreme court's ruling will stand, the U.S. Supreme Court will probably not hear an appeal of the case, and even if it did, the result will be the same.

And like it or not, the courts are the final arbiters of law as it pertains to the constitution.

Get used to it.

Despite your personal feelings on the matter, the bible does not dictate civil law.

It is remarkable how the judicial system is your friend when handing down court decisions you like and your enemy when ruling against you.

Kern County will once again be performing both heterosexual and gay marriages as soon as Barnett either acquiesces, resigns or is drummed out and replaced with someone who will properly perform the duties of County Clerk.

OK, here is a question for all of you Barnett praisers:  What benefits do the people of Kern County derive from her decision to close down the County Clerk's marriage program?  Do you believe she acted in the interests of the people of Kern County or in her own interests?

Yeah, and she lied about it, too.  Let's all applaud the liar!

Both in the intrest of Kern County and her own intrests.  Bully for her!