Thank you for a clear sighted perspective on this issue. And this part :      "County Counsel Bernard Barmann reportedly said he expected a “landslide” of same-sex couples to come forward for weddings on June 17 — Barnett’s reasons for putting a stop to wedding ceremonies should not be so quickly dismissed."   .... I hadn't even considered that.

   It seems the same sex advocates feel so strongly about this issue that they are blowing it way out of proportion, and attacking Barnette with an almost moblike mentality.

Dcs, I am a same-sex marriage advocate, and my feelings and comments about Ann Barnett have been quite sympathetic to her, not attacking her.

It takes constant practice, but training yourself to look first for the good intentions of people, and trying to see things through their eyes, is a broadening and calming skill.

I wish more people on both sides of this could give a try once in a while.

Barnett blatantly lied as to why she won't perform marriage ceremonies anymore.  Am I the only one bothered by THAT?

If Barnett's recently released numbers are correct, as to how much the County is losing in marriage ceremonies, that's just bad management-Anywhere else it would be making money. 

I was just wondering, justwondering, when did Ann Barnett blatantly lie? And about what? Staffing? I've said this in a couple of other blogs and it deserves repeating here; months ago Ann Barnett was quoted publically in The Californian about being overwhelmed and understaffed. Even the Board of Supervisors voiced concern about the ability of the auditor-controller's office to do the necessary department audits to keep everyone on the up-and-up. Lack of staff and proper department oversight was the likely contributor to the Desert Counselling and B.A. Jinadu debacles. She's definately irritated a segment of the community both by her actions and her tight-lipped response. But, like I've said, I'd rather she spend time doing department audits and uncovering problems there than marrying people. Besides, some non-secular individual will step to the plate and make a tidy some of money running a local marriage chapel.  

So she's not shy about talking regarding staff issues in the past, but she's suddenly struck shy now and sends deputies out.

Sounds like she's hiding something other than staffing issues. The other events you bring up lead me to think it's not a staffing issue, it's a competency issue--and *THAT* is what she's hiding.

So to point out the"obsessive media," the chronically late MaryLee adds yet another layer to the pile.

.

The ACLU would have examined the civil rights issues.  The ADF was called to cover Ms. Barnett's increasingly exposed  and vulnerable posterior.  Which the "politically-savvy" clerk has decided is more important than the county itself, or the people she "serves."

What RF said. 

Shrider: "Of COURSE Barnett consulted the ADF. No matter what professional and personal reasons lay behind her decision, the politically savvy Barnett knew full well how her announcement would be received by the pro-gay-marriage press. Who was she supposed to consult? The ACLU?"
 

Uh, the County Counsel's office? You do know that the County has its own lawyers on hand for just such an eventuality, right? That fact taht she called a Christian "defense" group speaks VOLUMES of her actual reasons behind stopping the ceremonies.

Shrider: "As for her personal feelings on the issue, they are her own and should stay that way."

Yes, that is precisely what everybody (saying she should be marrying people) is saying. (Those who support her "reasons" instead cite personal religious convictions in their advocacy for the decision.) Instead, she took her personal (religious) feelings and decided to change how her (supposedly secular) office operates. There's no other reasons for it- the paper showed the math. If her reasons were as stated, then she should have her math available, since that's supposedly the reason she made the decision in the first place. So what's taking so long?

Shrider: "Until the voters say otherwise, she’s also entitled to run her office as she sees fit."

I have a feeling that after the disaster with the voting machines, this is the final nail in her professional coffin.

Shrider: "The California Supreme Court has spoken, their decision is the law, at least for now: couples, gay and straight, may marry. That they may not marry at the county clerk’s office is not discrimination. Just an inconvenience."

The County government isn't supposed to make things inconvenient for the people, it is supposed to make things easier (or at least help them). It looks like a sizable percentage of people got married there before this decision, for whatever reason (convenience, cost, etc.). Now that she's taken that service away, she has some 'splaining to do.

I'd like to make the following points:

• If Ms. Barnett had been thinking properly and really did not have ill intentions, she should have consulted with an attorney who does not outwardly support either side of the issue at hand.  If Kern County has it's own legal staff, she should have consulted them. Is she really that surprised that people would be up in arms over her seeking legal counsul from an outward politically and religiously motivated group?
• I don't see how the claim of "budget concerns" holds any real water.  Ms. Barnett has not been forthcoming with her actual budget.  Also, one would think that if it were a budget issue, why couldn't the county charge a higher fee for the ceremony?
• I don't see how the claim of being "short staffed" holds any real water either.  The Clerk's office has obviously been able to perform these ceremonies in the recent past with no problems.  If it were really a concern, I'm sure that the Clerk's Office could change their policy so as to not only accomodate their staffing issues, but also make sure that they could still perform the ceremonies.  In other words.. if the Office is averaging 10 weddings a day (I'm making up numbers.. bear with me), and realizes that they can only accomodate 5 weddings a day instead, why can't they tell people that the wait to get married is going to be a bit longer than normal?  I'm sure plenty of our citizens would not have a problem with that.
• To go back to Ms. Barnett's intentions - why is she refusing to Deputize others so that they may perform these duties?
• Ms. Barnett is an elected official.  As an elected official, she should be forthcoming with the public, and not evasive.  As an elected official, she should be held accountable for all decisions she makes, whether good or bad.  Being in a position of leadership does not entitle one to a "get out of jail free" card when they make a decision which is seen as incorrect.

For the record: I have not once attempted to contact Ms. Barnett.  I feel that my words on these blogs are good enough, and they resonate with many Kern County residents. 

I said it in a more sympathetic way, but I believe Random is basically correct.

Let's be frank about what is going on here in Kern county. 

The religious right chose Kern county (because of it's conservative nature) as a testing ground to see what resistence they would receive from the ACLU and liberal leadership if they attempted to pushed a Christian doctrine into our local schools and government.

I bet Chad Vegas was promised a leadership role if he agree to became a pawn for Alliance Defence Fund. 

Do any of the rest of you agree that this is what's really happening here?

Agree Audrey

...yet pundits, reporters and news anchors from here to New York continue their breathless, though not always accurate, daily reports in the wake of Barnett’s decision.

This from The Queen Of Inaccuracies. Your audacity is surpassed only by your ignorance.

All of this mess,Rubio's absence,Vegas's and Mettler's "stand" are all political maneuvering. 

They've maneuvered Bakersfield into being an absolute laughingstock. Even people in Newark are looking down their noses at Bako...

*sigh* first Fresno and now Newerk??? When will our long county nightmare be over?

You know why Newark got the toxic-waste dumps and Bakersfield got the nutcase conservatives, right, JBS?

.

Newark got first choice.

Random

I was so wrong about you.  You DO have a sense of humor.  Thanks for the best laugh I've had in a week.

Let's go back to Marylee's "no rules were broken, no rules were bent."  That's bull.  When you are a public employee, your personal feelings are completely irrelevant, period.   Ann Barnett bent rules to satisfy her *own* rules.   She should be disciplined immediately.  And she already has legal counsel in the form of Mr Barmann.  If she's retained her own counsel, it's because she knows she's done something questionable.

And Chad Vegas's threat--what an inflated ego!  I'm too stunned by his boorish behavior to comment further.

Mom, I told you Random was funny!  Well done, Random.

You're right but unfortunately she has not only taken a stand that has every appearance of reflecting her own personal views rather than the mission of her office. Her behavior has embarrassed the county by making national news in giving us the sort of attention we don't need. Rather than make her and the county look like some sort of bulwark of truth and light it makes us look unsophisticated, ignorant and intolerant of a pluralistic society. That's why  the media attention.

This sanctimonious view of "I'm right and the rest of the world is wrong" is all to common among Evangelicals as now publicly expressed by Chad Vegas, a school board member who is more interested in pushing his self righteous but limited world view based on his own ideology. Ms. Barnett's reaction to the press seeking to cover a wedding they had been invited to illustrates her personal but out of touch views when after making the county look foolish by denying the press access to the ceremony. A procedure they had every right to cover until she was advised by county council to respond differently.

The view that gay marriage is wrong is a religious one and obviously her church has every right if not the obligation to not perform such a ceremony but her day job is not a religious one nor is it structured along religious lines. It is a civil ceremony and should  be treated as such performed for people who in many cases live a lifestyle and hold beliefs that differ widely from hers  to the point she may find them repugnant. That those are legal is the defining factor. Not her personal ideology. God did not appoint her or even the arrogant Chad Vegas as judge of all things right or good.

"Chad Vegas" sound like an alias, ala "Jack Ruby." 

"Chad Vegas" sounds like a 70s tv character in a polyester leisure suit, and a purple pimp hat. But, I'm not judgmental.

The leisure suit sounds right, but instead of the pimp hat, I think he'd have a perm, wear aviator sunglasses, and smoke those pencil-thin cigars. People would egg his '71 Dodge Dart wherever he went, so he'd spend a lot of time in car washes flirting with the teenage girl who works the cash register. She'd turn him down, and her father - who owns the car wash - would punch Vegas in the eye (thus the aviator sunglasses).

You guys are too funny!

I see "Chad Vegas" more as an Elvis movie role.  I saw one where Elvis was a car mechanic (hah!) and Ann-Margaret brought her car in to get "fixed."  Chad would be the snotty villian that Elvis beats in the end.

Whatever...Ann tried to get out of it and they wouldn't let her...so yes,she sought legal help...who wouldn't...but she chose 'a side'..not always favorable to all,but isn't this is what it's all about...I've read the pro's--and the con's from the public out there...and there is alot of people out there on both sides...remind you of anything......

By the way,was I the only one that read that Massachusetts courts will not grant ' gay divorces '....

True, Barnett has been cautious and deliberate in her response to reporters. Critics, like Los Angeles Times columnist Patt Morrison, in her Thursday column, even suggested Barnett is so intent on dodging the media “her home phone had been disconnected.”

Odd. It was working just fine when I called. And always has, Barnett said.

Hmmm.   From the article:

On Thursday, she appeared stung by critics who have labeled her a "religious terrorist" and called for her resignation; by the hate mail that has flooded her office; by the unceasing requests for interviews, so many that she has unplugged her home phone.

Marylee: would you mind calling Barnett back and asking her if the threats and hate mail were also made up by the reporter? 

Vegas will drop from the political scene before too long ..  too damn transparent.  Man u gotta camoflage your true intentions sometimes if u want to see some real change!.  This zealot wants to shove his beliefs down everyone's throat - piss enough of us middle of the road folks and all u religious nut jobs will be restricted to preaching your spiel to your little flocks...

A guy with a last name like "Vegas" has to have a past; a conviction for taking part in a scam or for molesting chickens or sheep (it's usually his kind that are into that sort of thing...)

Lingtaowoo on Jun 14, 2008 at 12:21 PM wrote: "By the way,was I the only one that read that Massachusetts courts will not grant ' gay divorces '...."

You may have been. What you're referring to is a Rhode Island judge who says that because RI doesn't recognize same sex marriages from Massachusetts, the state can't handle a same sex divorce. The couple has been forced to move back to Massachusetts and, after the state's waiting period, file for divorce there.

Barnett would have had a lot of credibility if she had just owned up to the truth and not tried to weasle out of it by citing financial and security reasons. That is just total bunk and it made her and the county look bad. If she had any religious or moral integrity, she should have said she would not perform same sex marriages due to her religious beliefs and then resign. No one could have faulted her for that. Instead, she tried to have it both ways and, quite understandably, it hasn't gone over well.

Stay away from my friend list.

Spot, what's "normal"? I'm attracted to the opposite sex, but I'm sure as hell not normal.

How would you like to wait in line for eons at DMV to get your driver's license or car registration renewed, only to have the clerk point to a "We reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE" sign, and then have him lisp out, "We don't therve people who have Dalmatians in their avatar photo," followed by, "toodle-ooo" while waving a silk hanky as Gay Bodybuilder Security (GBS) escorts you from the building.

Spot.....thats the best argument you can present? It doesn't even make sense.  It's people like the Clerk, and Spot who have made Kern County a joke to America. 

Amoradocat

I think he just wanted to say "queer" a lot.

Shrider- as a gay man who has taken a stand against the kind of backward thinking that Barnett represents I can say unequivocably that Anns' actions were/are questionsable without doubt; that her statements (few as they have been) have left a lot to be desired and more to be interpreted. A recall? No. Removed from office? Certainly.

Speaking on behalf of the LGBTQ community, I want to reinterate what I have said several times publicly: for us it was never about ceremonies performed by the clerk's office.  We AGREE that it is a discretionary power, and while we suspect it had less to do with funding and space and more to do with religion, we have no malice because she isn't performing ceremonies.  Frankly, we are very happy that she will uphold the law and make it possible for us to marry in Kern County by issuing licenses.  She has done exactly what is legal, and frankly, we appreciate that part.  We are not calling for her resignation; we are not leading any recall effort. 

We regret that Barnett's personal views, however, may prevent straight couples from getting married.  Certainly the 25 couples who had appointments beyond June 13 were upset, although perhaps some of them were able to re-schedule for last Friday.  But Barnett's decision won't prevent a single gay marriage, as people are coming out of the woodwork by the dozen asking to officiate at our ceremonies.  And, on June 17, unlike the Clerk, our officiants won't discriminate.  Any couple, gay or straight who marries on June 17, will be welcome by those officiants on site for the occasion. 

We're going to have a fabulous celebration on June 17, as two dozen couples tie the knot.  That's really the end of the story as far as we're concerned.

Very nicely said.

You are being totally fair and understanding of Ann Barnett, and I hope that the two dozen couples have a very happy day on June 17.

wlwedd,

You are a way better person than I am. 

I am straight, believe in God and I don't care who chooses to get married.

I do care, however, that a person that represents us, the people, is making choices for us based on her religious convictions, rather than the government position she holds.  Seperation of the state and church?

If she represented a church and worked for a church and refused to marry certain people, I wouldn't care.  But, she doesn't.  She represents the people and not all of  "the people" hold her religious beliefs.  She knew that when she took the job.

She didn't seek legal counsel on how not to get sued for not marrying people because of the county's financial issues, she sought it for how not to get in trouble for  not marrying gays.  That speaks volumes.

I know you are right, there will be plenty of people stepping up to marry anyone that she refuses to marry.  But, it is the principle at question here-the job we pay her for,  calls her to serve the people, not pick and choose which people.  I fully believe if gay marriage wasn't approved, she would still be marrying straight people.

Gee, the media is interested in people's rights issues, and are curious as to why adding maybe 7% more weddings to their menu might spell financial disaster for a service that at worst breaks even. Everyone knows just how violent the gay community is, so the addition of a SWAT unit at each ceremony is just too draining on the local economy.

How dare your fellow journalists do that. They should be out covering Lindsey Lohan's latest rehab, Britnney Spears choice in underwear, or Jessica Simpsons transition to country. Y'know, the important stuff. Human rights, hey State Law doesn't need to cover that, we have the Old Testament.

This article was nothing more than a giant "Come on you meanies, knock it off"

Classic

Wow, I can't believe I missed this before:  "Until the voters say otherwise, she’s also entitled to run her office as she sees fit."

Are you really advocating that position that an elected official can do whatever they want until they are stopped by the electorate?  I know that as long as she stays inside the law, it's true, but it's shocking to see someone just come out and say that elected officials are only accountable at the polls and not to any higher obligation or oath.  It's the lowest common denominator of democracy.

I was watching the Board Of Supervisors televised meeting yesterday and they started out the meeting with the pledge of allegience with GOD still in it.  Then they went on to say a prayer.  Oh NO !!!  Someone STOP them.  Public office, elected officials, saying a prayer AND using GOD in the salute.  What's this world coming to???

Somebody needs to get up a petition...........

Tom, that precedent was set by the current resident of the White House. 

Marylee Shrider failed to point out in her column that she and Ms. Barnett are members of the same church. Golly, do you think that might be why Marylee was able to reach Ms. Barnett while others could not?

There are so many other gaping holes in Marylee's logic that I can't possibly take the time to address them all. Besides, many of you have done an admirable job of that. Thanks to justwondering, miles, randomfactor (I love you man!), mildmannered, avanti, and others.

It happens to be my birthday today, and I'm going to make two wishes: for Ms. Barnett's recall and for TBC to cease publishing Ms. Shrider's column. That's not too much to ask, is it?

 I am personally very grateful to right-wing nut jobs like Ann Barnett and Marylee Shrider. By spewing their hate-filled diatribe in the media it is opening the eyes of many who never took any kind of position on these issues. I have spoke with numerous people that were at one point anti-gay/anti-gay marriage or who did not take a position one way or the other who after seeing how our redneck, backwards, hillbilly elected leaders have responded to this issue are now fully supportive of same-sex marriage. I believe that those with malignant hearts such as Barnett and Shrider, along with all the other "good ole boy" leaders such as Chad Vegas, in this sad little county are going to be very surprised when this constitutional amendment making gay marriage illegal meets with sound defeat. Can anyone imagine a constitutional amendment outlawing interracial marriage? or legalizing slavery? I am sure that Jeff Foxworthy must be working on some great "you might be a redneck" jokes and Bill Engvall is making some "here's your sign" jokes about people like Barnett, Shrider and Chad Vegas.

So I say to Barnett, Shrider and Vegas, Keep exercising your First Amendment rights! The more you talk, the more you are convincing the citizens of this great state just what idiots you and all the other religious nut jobs are. You three have done more for the advancement of the gay movement than Anita Bryant ever could have. By the way, does anyone remember Anita Bryant?? For all of her anti-gay hate speech in the 70's I would be very surprised if many even remember her.

WHOA !  Talk about hate filled speech.  Have you looked in a mirror lately?  Re-read what you just wrote?

Df, you are DEF. The movement sold itself to the highest bidder. Give us safety! Give us legitimacy! So called safety and so called legitimacy. The church will take over gay publications by pretending to give this betraying branch of idiots a morality to fit their new "status". Oh sure, you will say it is a kind thing to sucker punch revolutionaries with a new suite at the Waldorf Astoria, but we have been through this before. Gays have sold the revolution down the river by submitting to the domination of their cultural masters. True hate is the province of the betrayers, those who sell out. The buggers have no friends on our side of the aisle any longer. Oh well, they can figure all that out when they are unceremoniously dumped into the indoctrinating torture chambers of the right wing plantation about what their new life of slavery is all about.  

Right on DFJonesJr!!  And the fact that their printed op-ed's,  point readers to these blogs is going to be a great tool this summer. 

This is one of the couples that Ms. Shrider, Ms Barnett and Mr. Vargas would deny equality to. Isnt it about time to honor this couple who have been together 55 years and who are in the twilight years of their life! I am so happy that the elderly couple who have fought for my rights that I and my spouse enjoy for so many years!

What would Ms Shrider, Ms Barnett and Mr. Vargas tell these senior citizens who are American, why they are not equal to other Americans!

THis is just one of the faces of gays couples getting married.

Dozens of same-sex couples are now legally married in the nation's most populous state as California became the second state in the nation to legalize gay marriage.

In San Francisco, 87-year-old Del Martin and 84-year-old Phyllis Lyon were married after being together for more than 50 years. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom officiated:

"Well-wishers cheered when they emerged outside Newsom's office after the ceremony. Dozens of couples gathered outside the clerks offices in Alameda, Sonoma and Yolo counties, where hours were extended to accommodate gay couples who wanted to be among the first to marry. Derek Norman, 23 and Robert Blaudow, 39, from Memphis, were in the Bay Area for a conference and decided to get married at the Alameda County clerk's office. 'We might wait a long time in Tennessee, so this is our chance,' Blaudow said. First in line to pick up a marriage license in Sonoma was Melanie Phoenix, 47, and Terry Robinson, 48, of Santa Rosa. They have been together for almost 26 years and plan to be wed in August."

I'm too young to remember Anita Bryant, but I know about her.