Since you say no laws are being broken louis, why are you wasting our time with this? I think you should stick to writing about hitting and watching pigeons die...

What?  You have a PROBLEM with our newspaper of record reporting on what our elected officials are up to?  Geez, most people complain about too LITTLE political reporting.

I think it's newsworthy.  Too bad you don't like flashlights lighting up your friends.

Non~issue. I pick my church for matters of the spirit~ not politics,but to each his own.

Sorry about the friend remark.  I take it back.  However, an activist who holds an elected office is NOT just another activist.  The political activism of people who HOLD politically elected office is worth reporting.  I agree that he didn't violate any laws, though.

FTA: "In his latest church newsletter, also sent out this week by e-mail to some 200 recipients, most of them congregants at Sovereign Grace, Vegas writes, “As I prepare to preach this coming Father’s Day, I am struck by the cultural irony that faces us. Our nation is celebrating fatherhood at the same time that our state is legalizing marriages that can not produce children.”"
 

Is Mr. Vegas proposing fertility tests be part of marriage licenses? Does that mean sterile couples can't get married in his church? "Just take this cup into the vestibule and close the curtains. We'll run the tests and let you know in a few weeks if you can get married....."

"Posted on kerndemocrats.com, the e-mail says such things as, “I am writing to make you aware of my ardent support for Ann Barnett. Please support her. Further, please know that I will work vigorously to remove from office any supervisor that does not support her in this difficult time...I want to make it clear that nothing short of complete opposition to homosexual marriage will be tolerated!...Please don’t hide behind your oath on an issue this important. Your oath was to uphold the constitution, not to uphold every stupid law or judicial decision that comes around. At times, civil disobedience is the only way to keep your oath.”"

If he campaigns for a candidate from the pulpit, then his church can lose its tax-exempt status.

Oh, and the "judicial decision" was made on Constitutional grounds. Dollars-to-doughnuts that Mr. Vegas believes that the judges "wrote a new law" in their decision.

Let's see if Mr. Vegas puts his money where his mouth is. Anyone want to bet that he'll be arrested trying to prevent same-sex marriages? Or if he's just another blowhard trying to get others in trouble for his beliefs.......

Mr.Vegas and Ray Ashburn organized a stop gay marriage/ rights event  a couple of years ago.  Counterprotestors greatly outnumbered Vegas and Ashburn's  anti-gay event. Go ahead Vegas and try to organize a campaign to remove supervisors who do not adhere to your beliefs. You don't have as much power as you think you have.

Once again the paper is obsessed with Chad Vegas.  While they stalk Ann Barnett for a decision made within the law and under her descretion, they ignore (or barely notice) the violation of civil rights of christian students at a local high school. And while they go into attack mode over Chad Vegas (once again) openning his mouth and scaring them with his creepy christianity, they completely overlook the fact that someone IN THE COUNTY OFFICE RELEASED A LETTER FROM A CONSTIUENT ,TO THE KERN COUNTY DEMOCRAT PARTY. Isn't the more interesting question; who gave that letter to a political party? Or how about this: can county supervisors or county employees give YOUR letters to politcal parties to publish on their websites? Or......I could come up with a few more.

This is a constitutional argument. If anyone legitimately presents a constitutional counter argument to the decision of the Republican dominated California Supreme Court, then they need to be listened to.  However, when religious figures or otherwise use their interpretation, feelings or beliefs as fuel for abandoning this law, they are purporting a system of justice that is wholly un-American.  Find your reasoning in the constitution,  that is how our system works. 

Our system also would enjoy a calm and cool discussion of these matters within that construct.  Amazing how quickly threats are made.

I want to make sure I understand something:  It's a violation of a homosexual couple's civil rights if they are not allowed to get married.  A recognized civil union is not enough.  Society should allow anyone to get married as long as they love each other, right?

If this is true, where do we draw the line -- or CAN we even draw the line -- to put any kind of boundaries on the sanctity of marriage?

Why shouldn't polygamists be allowed to get married?

Why shouldn't first cousins be allowed to get married?

Why shouldn't a father be allowed to marry his daughter, provided she's of legal age?

Heck . . . why should AGE be a restriction to anyone getting married??? 

JUST AS LONG AS THE PEOPLE INVOLVED LOVE EACH OTHER AND WANT TO MAKE A COMMITMENT TO EACH OTHER.  IT'S THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS.

Don't people see where this is heading?

Uuhhh....ColorNine, first cousins CAN marry in California .....  

This is part of the reason why I stopped attending religious services many years ago. All these religious leaders who preach hate, discrimination and judgement against others. My God is not the one they speak of; my God loves all his children and accepts them.

This country is founded on principals set forth over 200 years ago. Some of those principals have been adapted from their original intention. We have many rights; speech, religion, assembly and vote. Pastor Vegas has the right as an individual to espouse his beliefs, but as a member of the clergy he should be using them to preach love, tolerance and acceptance of all people. God is the only one to stand in judgement.

My father died in Vietnam to protect those rights for all, not only those that agreed with his religion beliefs.

theColorNine,

You are using the exact same argument that they used in the Loving case which decided that interracial marriages were guaranteed by the constitution.  People were horrified by the potential of black men marrying white women.  Slippery slope arguments are faulty, they can be used for anything.  What you have to determine, again, is the constitution. Not hypothetical conjecture.

ColorNine valid points who cares where they came from..its the preachers duty to his congregation to discuss matters that can have a lasting effect on them and their children..especially if it counters their beliefs..You guys are just as guilty of trying to force your wants and desires on everyone as those who oppose you...all i can do is just sit here helpless shakin my head while I watch the moral fiber of my country slowly deteriorate..high gas and food prices our kids educational skills are laggin behind lesser countries...illegal immigration...unpopular war..etc...

maybe it is over..the party I mean..been a good 200 years though ya gotta admit..we went through alot together..but we have lost the ability to band together long enough to get over one hurdle before another one pops up. its tearing us apart..nuff said..Gotta GO!!!

Thanks, gopherbro.  I didn't know (obviously) that first cousins could marry in CA.  Where I grew up in the Midwest they couldn't, but maybe they can there now, too.   So what about the other examples I listed? 

And bghayes, I freely admit I am not a Constitutional scholar.  I'm merely asking, if the Constitution (great document that it is -- and it IS) affords citizens such broad civil rights as the Constitution is being interpreted in modern times, where or WHY should there be any limitations on who can get married?  Why shouldn't the Texas polygamist sect that was recently in the news file a lawsuit demanding that it be okay for their men to legally marry as many women of any age that they want?

Okay, so we currently have laws against incest, statutory rape and polygamy, so the FLDS group would have to get that changed first.  There used to be laws against interracial relationships, but those laws were changed.  Maybe it won't be long until the laws against incest, statutory rape and polygamy are changed so that marriages can occur between all people.  As long as the relationships are consensual, aren't these just more examples of alternative lifestyles that should be protected by our Constitution?

Chad Vegas is an ignorant bible-thumper.  The fact that Bako elected this miscreant to a school policy making position is shocking.

That is plain silly~ sorry.The difference between rape,incest  and marriage should be obvious. Polygamy is a much more interesting question ~ that does seem to stem from the Mormons and the clash with our government. To be able to become a state they gave up their deeply held religious tenants,as given by an angel to John Smith. There are non religious polygamist marriages,but we rarely hear of those. Why do we hold these "taboos"?

Polyamory, which I wholeheartedly condone, and a little bit more.

Unfortunately, even Religious leaders aren't perfect, and too often they lose sight of the very point of Christianity.

This is exactly why I'm currently confused as to where my wife and I are going to settle down, Church-wise.

Why shouldn't the Texas polygamist sect that was recently in the news file a lawsuit demanding that it be okay for their men to legally marry as many women of any age that they want?

Good question, actually.  There's no reason he can't.  In a similar fashion, you can go into court and state that your bicycle should be declared a motorcycle and thus allowed on freeways.  You'll get similar results.  There's a fundamental problem with riding bicycles on freways.

Now, if some state had tried to pass a law that only Catholics may ride bicycles on the freeway, you'd be home free.  You can correctly argue that the exception for one is an exception for all under the "equal protection" clause.  If the state lets you ride your bike, or forbids everyone, that's acceptable.

In the same way, marriage is a legal agreement between *TWO* people.  A will be responsible for B, B will be responsible for A.   Add someone else and it doesn't work.  A will be responsible for B, who will be responsible for C, who will be responsible for A?  It works, but it amounts to three contracts, not one.  And it's not neat.  What if two want to divorce but the third doesn't?  Can you eliminate one link and still have the chain?

And since we're talking contracts, that eliminates the inane arguments about children and animals--consent.

That said, there's no reason why people can't live in polyamorous groupings.  There's no reason why they can't go through weddings.  There's a mathematical reason why the legal aspects become vastly more complicated than with two persons.

Unfortunately, even Religious leaders aren't perfect, and too often they lose sight of the very point of Christianity.

They have very good grasp of what the point of Christianity is.  But these days, Christianity has so little to do with Christ...

Spam code SHTTR.  I shutter to think what that spells.

In my opinion, the biggest flaw that religious leaders share is vanity.   Maybe it's because it's easier for their congregations to idolize a living, breathing human being than it is to idolize an invisible entity.   And who better to idolize than the messenger.

RF - point noted.

Chad Vegas, Inga Barks, Ann Barnett :   is this the best Bako has to offer ?  - to listen to these folks you would think the entire city is populated by idiots who live by an extreme interpretation of the good book ...

“I am legally entitled to call on my congregation to fight for issues that are directly related to our faith,” he wrote to Californian assistant managing editor and columnist Lois Henry about his newsletter. “It is perfectly legal and legitimate to tell them to stand up for truth. I have called for similar action on abortion, and I would have called for it on civil rights had I been alive during that era.”

Two things: first of all, this *is* that era.  This is a civil rights issue.  Secondly, I assume that Vegas is saying he supports interracial marriage and would have supported the "activist judges" in Loving.

Sagefever -- you are right; on the surface this does seem silly.  But when the 17 yr old girl finds out she's pregnant by her long time 20 yr old boyfriend as a result of a consensual activity and they want to get married but the parents say absolutely not, legally the boyfriend has committed statutory rape.

And Google "father marries daughter." There are apparently circumstances of couples wanting to do this.

Random -- A marriage can still be between two people, but why does it always have to be two *DIFFERENT* people?  If laws are being rewritten, why not rewrite that one? Using your A-B-C example, why not:  A and B have a contract (marriage).  A and C have a contract.  A and D have a contract.  A and B can terminate their contract without involving C or D.  Doesn't it happen in business all the time?

I don't think our founding fathers had any idea some of these pairings would ever come up, so it must be difficult at times to interpret the Constitution.  I see our society becoming more and more lenient.  If Dad and Daughter want to marry, who are they hurting?  (How often do we hear that argument?)  I'm just asking "How far will our society say it's acceptable to go before it IS okay to 'trample' on somebody's 'rights' when it comes to marriage?" 

I think our founding fathers all knew about homosexuality~see cabin boys.I see this as extending that phrase about equality to a group of human beings that have been denied it. "Lenient"  ?  All men are created equal~ with inalienable rights to the pursuit of liberty and happiness~ seems simple enough to me. It has taken years for that statement to apply to women,more years to those who are "non-white" and even more years to those who are GLBT. A natural and just progression.

I do not buy that this will lead to folks marring their children (though there is Biblical president for such) or animals. BTW~ I was adopted in the 50's and through luck, not law ,did not have my brothers children...more gist for the mill.

If you manage to get a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman , I'd like to know how are you going to define what is a man and what defines a woman?  Is Vegas going to lift skirts or peek down pants?  Even then I don't know if he could tell the difference in some.

So Vegas is planning on removing any supervisor who opposes Barnett. I wonder how many people in Kern County are planning on removing all 32 teeth from Vegas' mouth?

dfwilliamson, you've hit on an important point.  There are thousands of same-sex couples across the nation living quiet lives as married couples--and many don't even know it.  Vegas would invalidate their unions if he could--but he can't identify them.  Not every male having XY chromosomes looks like a man.

the ColorNine: "Random -- A marriage can still be between two people, but why does it always have to be two *DIFFERENT* people?  If laws are being rewritten, why not rewrite that one? Using your A-B-C example, why not:  A and B have a contract (marriage).  A and C have a contract.  A and D have a contract.  A and B can terminate their contract without involving C or D.  Doesn't it happen in business all the time?"
 

I'm sure Random will answer this if I'm wrong here, but think about who would get what is just such an event. California is a "no-fault" state, meaning that in the event that the two parties can't decide between themselves who gets what, they're supposed to divide things equally. What is equal if "Party A" shares their things with one (or more) other people? And how would they calculate alimony? Would A+B = 50/50, A+C = 50/25, A+D = 50/12.5 ...? Who gets the house, when one spouse is still sharing it with more spouses? How would visitation rights be metted out, if other spouses shared in child rearing duties?

Chad Vegas is not a true Christian.  A true Christian would not go around trying to vehemently force his/her beliefs on others.  He is rather an imposter who uses the bible to back up his own personal feelings.  Gay marriages are here to stay whether legalized or not.   

jbs

He lives in Bakersfield.  He doesn't have 32 teeth.

dfwilliamson

They will have to create a new county position.  That person would be responsible for determining who's who.    The official "peeper"

Selected quote from Vegas' email:

“...Your oath was to uphold the constitution, not to uphold every stupid law or judicial decision that comes around. At times, civil disobedience is the only way to keep your oath.”

I wonder if back in 2002, when SF mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the okay for all gay and straight couples to receive marriage licenses, Vegas was appreciative of  that bit of civil disobedience?

And, hope you're reading Chad Vegas, the point of a civil service job IS to uphold each law. Not just those that make you more popular with your evangelical sect.

I wouldn't go so far as to judge Chad Vegas's salvation, but I agree with this part of Toyotarav4's comment:

"A true Christian would not go around trying to vehemently force his/her beliefs on others."

I just thougt of who it is that Chad Vegas reminds me of,  Jim Bakker.  The same ambitious, smarmy charm, hiding ~~something~~.

A ticking time bomb of self-destruction.

All I got to say is that Chad Vegas better not have any skeletons or dirty secrets in his life currently or in the past.

I do have to wonder about a person when they issues threats such as Chad has or so forceful on his values views, what is he hiding. I think of Jimmy Swegart, Jim Baker, Newt Gringich, Ted Haggard etc etc etc.

No fear.   The weight of his ego on one shoulder and his ambition on the other will make him topple over.

Maybe I read his web site incorrectly, but is Vegas running his church out of one of your public schools?  May I relocate my temple there?  We meet on Fridays, so it won't interfere with his Sunday services..  BTW---What kind of name is Chad Vegas?

I wish someone would catch him using the district copier to run off material for one of his "outside" interests.  That would be cool seeing him misuse public property that way.

" I wouldn't go so far as to judge Chad Vegas's salvation."   Hmm..I don't think I was judging per se but giving my opinion.  I'm sure we read out of the same bible but it is evident that we interpret it differently.  The only difference between he and I is that I read the bible for what it is and do not use it to make value judgements on others or use it to discriminate against a class of people.  I'm a devout Christian and I don't condone polygamy but who am I to make a big deal out of what someone else wants to do with their life?  If I may bring the old testament of the bible into this discussion, uh, there was polygamy.  TONS of it.   If you read the King James Version of the bible (the version that the New Living Bible is translated from) it does not mention homosexuality.  People have taken verses from II Corinthians and Romans and made it into what they wanted.

The bottom line is regardless of our personal beliefs and walk with God we have NO RIGHT to judge others or attempt to rule over what someone else does with their life...unless it's our own children..:).

 "I do have to wonder about a person when they issues threats such as Chad has or so forceful on his values views, what is he hiding. I think of Jimmy Swegart, Jim Baker, Newt Gringich, Ted Haggard etc etc etc."

For dirty secrets & skeletons my favorite is the notorious County Supervisor and California Representative Gary Condit who, while forcefully advocating the imposition of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS on all public school classroom walls, was all the while violating the eleventh commandment: "Thou shalt not put thy rod in thy staff"  with intern Chandra Levy...who went missing and was found mysteriously murdered....