*yawn*... C'mon, everyone knew Barnett was playing fast and loose with the accounting numbers in order to try to cover her conservative, God-fearing tushy.  Now we know just how big a lie it was that we were told.   So what are we going to DO about this? 

In other words, raising the fees by 50 cents per ceremony would have covered the cost....

Somewhere Paul Simon is singing "Lie lie lie, lie lie lie lie lie lie lie...."

Well worth the price to prevent the "in your face" photo opportunities on the court house steps.

Well, Ann Barnett is not the only one here playing fast with the facts.  The article also quotes Randy Thommason as saying, "Our attorney will be issuing a well-researched legal analysis later this week which shows this ordinance is indeed constitutional.  “The constitution says counties can pass any ordinance that is not in conflict with statute.”

Well, Thommason for one has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding during this entire case.  He appeared in Sacramento days before June 17 and claimed that polygamy would begin in the state on the 17th.  His rationale?  Because same-gender persons who were in domestic partnerships with one eprson could now get married to another and hold on to that DP (WRONG!!!  The law REQUIRES that the DP with one person be DISSOLVED before the marriage license can be issued for another person.  DP's, however, can be kept if the same two people are getting married).

He's also wrong here.  The fact is that the proposed ordinance WOULD be in conflict with statute, because the very statutes he is basing his arguments on (family code) are the ones that were struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional.  He is desperately grabbing at wet strands of spaghetti here.

This is the whole reason I FOUND Bakersfield.com.  This just gets crazier and crazier.  Is this article online? I don't get the Californian newspaper (I hang my head in shame).

 Oops. Never mind. I found the article.

Looks like The Campaign for Children and Families is about to notch yet another failure. I noticed they are plugging gun rights for their constituency on their web site. I don't have a problem with gun ownership but it's a strange juxtaposition for an outfit to have that claims moral authority as advocated for children in its very name.

Well worth the price to prevent the "in your face" photo opportunities on the court house steps.

Oh, I know.  Tell me about it.  Those heterosexual couples just won't rest unil they've pushed their sexual orientation on everyone. 

From the article:  Barnett, a conservative Christian, announced she would end civil marriages due to budget, space and security reasons on June 4, the day the California Supreme Court ruled gay marriage licenses must be issued starting June 17.

I still want to know how one woman on a power trip, fueled by righteous indignation, gets to decide who she will or won't provide a PUBLIC service to?  Will the next step be denying atheists or Muslims marriage licenses because it goes against her conservative values?  If her convictions are that strong, then she should find another line of work.  

I do find it continually troubling to see a public Clerk-Auditor position so partisan, and who cannot even get the numbers right. Her actions are so pathetic, it hurts to follow this story from embarrassment.

To quote HusbandMaterial "Looks like The Campaign for Children and Families is about to notch yet another failure. I noticed they are plugging gun rights for their constituency on their web site. I don't have a problem with gun ownership but it's a strange juxtaposition for an outfit to have that claims moral authority as advocated for children in its very name."

Well, of course they need guns. How else will they be able to shoot those who do not fall in line when the RRR (Radical Religious Right) finally takes over the rest of the Country. If you think the Taliban was evil, wait until you see what these RRR Christians are capable of. Happy 4th of July. Enjoy what little freedoms you have left.

With so many people today giving in to every lust known to man I for one applaud Ann for standing up for what she believes! Good for you Ann!!

"With so many people today giving in to every lust known to man I for one applaud Ann for standing up for what she believes! Good for you Ann!!"

If she were standing up for her beliefs as a private citizen, I would completely agree with you. But, she is an elected (not for long) public official. She has no right to force others to conform to her beliefs. That is exactly what she has done. If you want government officials to force religious beliefs on you or others, then move to Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Sad.  what ever will we do with our "savings"? 

Lets see. $171 a year. That's a savings of $14.25 a month. Using an average of 30 days a month, that's a savings of $.47 a day.

Hey, it's a start.

I demand a tax rebate!

She stated She would not perform same sex marriages she didn't say someone else couldn't. She does represent a public office yet but she is also protected under the law from violating her religious beliefs. As you said this may just cause her to be removed from her post and if so then so be it. I still think she did the right thing. We as Americans have the right to speak our minds and that's that.

"We as Americans have the right to speak our minds and that's that." Really? I don't think so. If any of us really "spoke our minds", we would end up on some government lists that you don't want to be on. We have the illusion of freedom, tempered with political correctness and filtered through sensorship. We, as Americans lost those "freedoms" a long time ago. In any event, our system of government relies on the people elected into it to follow the law and serve the people, regardless of their religious beliefs. She has failed to do both, and is in fact denying freedoms to those who rightfully warrant it.

Lets see:  believe a CPA (Barnett) or the Board's lacky (Errera) ....   hum

iamzzyzx, I just wanted to clear up some facts about your statement:

"She stated She would not perform same sex marriages she didn't say someone else couldn't."

Actually that is exactly what Ms. Barnett said.

County government's power to perform civil ceremonies lies only with Ms. Barnett.

No one else in the county can perform the ceremonies unless Ms. Barnett grants them the power. At the same time she ended marriages in her office she said she would not be giving that power to new people and would be revoking the powers of some people she had made her "marriage deputies."

Kern County Superior Court Judges are the only other officials who can perform civil ceremonies. They've been out of that business for around 20 years and have made no move to start a new court-based civil marriage system since Barnett's decision.

James Burger

Californian staff writer

Lets see:  believe a CPA (Barnett) or the Board's lacky (Errera) ....   hum

Well, since the CPA has been lying since Day One, I'll have to go with the lackey.

I got this response about Errea's arguements from Assistant Auditor Controller Glenn Spencer on e-mail after I left work on Thursday. Wish we could have gotten it in the story...but here it is.

"In response to your question to Mrs. Barnett regarding the County
Administrative Office' response to the Board of Supervisors on civil
marriage ceremonies, the cost figure calculated by our office of $81,297
represents the actual total cost of performing civil ceremonies, while
the figure of $63,171 provided by the County Administrative Office
represents only the cost of an Office Services Tech position."

I still haven't seen a credible explanation as just how allowing same sex marriage would harm the institution of marriage. Just how does the legal marriage of a Christian couple in a church "in the presence of God" by a minister become less credible if a few miles away a civil marriage between a same sex couple also takes place?

It looks to me this is more about minding other people's business than protecting anything. Self righteousness run amok!