Reader: Well, it seems County
Clerk Ann Barnett has a friend in
Californian columnist Marylee
Shrider. They both seem to have a
hatred for gays and the gay marriage
issue. Shrider wrote that “they
of the slippery slope school are left to
ponder the logic or lack thereof
behind the courts ruling.” Did she
even read the ruling or was she only
quoting the opinion of the Heritage
Foundation? Everyone has their own
opinion but some show such hatred it
blinds their thought process. But I
think this open hatred will actually
bring the gay community closer
together and develop a stronger
drive to keep the new law in place.
All gay/lesbian couples who plan
to marry should invite Ann Barnett
to their weddings and present her
with a rainbow bouquet for coming.
— Jim McCall

Jenner: Marylee Shrider doesn’t
hate gay people. But she also doesn’t
approve of gay marriage.
She responds:
“In my columns, I try to focus on
the marriage aspect. I believe in traditional
marriage — with one man
and one woman. People can read
whatever they want to into that.”
Shrider also confirms that she did
indeed read the state Supreme
Court ruling:
“The ruling is clear and to the
point. In a 4-3 decision, the justices
ruled that people have the right to
marry whomever they like and that
gender restrictions are unconstitutional.
What important point did I
miss?”
Also, she said the analysis of the
ruling by the Heritage Foundation
was not the only one she read, just
the one she found most compelling.
Reader: Today (June 15) is Sunday
and Father’s Day.
I am curious as to which story in
today’s paper makes you the most
proud? The one on the front page of
the gay male couple, the story about
the unknown person taking out
recall papers on Ann Burnett or the
story about the people signing the
petition against Ken Weir?
Since today is Father’s Day, I do
not know if you are a parent, but if
you are, how do you go about
explaining to your children or
grandchildren what the homosexual
lifestyle is all about? How do you
encourage them to live a normal
lifestyle? Since it is the parent’s job
to discuss sex with our children at
some point in time so that they do
not make horrible mistakes and they
are responsible in their private
lives, how do you prepare them for
the adult world? You also have to be
careful to not make them cruel to
those who live different lifestyles.
Today’s paper did not make me
feel good — only sad that this fine
city has to go through this.
— Irene Edmonds

Jenner: The first story you mention
was about how two gay men
who have been a couple for 25 years
were affected by the recent court
decision that legalized same-sex
marriages in California.
The second story you reference,
which ran inside the Local section,
was a straightforward story about a
man who asked for and obtained a
recall packet.
The third story dug into an assertion
made by Ward 3 Councilman
Ken Weir that environmentalists
and city employees were behind an
attempt to recall him.
Each of these stories was relevant,
well-reported, thoughtful and
fair.
You didn’t ask me about the more
than 26 other stories and columns in
that edition written by our staffers.
Or about the most unique and moving
package in the paper — the 58
essays and photos shared by local
men and women about what their
fathers mean to them. I know the
stories you mentioned dealt with
topics you don’t want to read about
— but these topics are important to
our community and many readers.
It’s easy these days to find a blog
or a radio or television program that
presents news only from a certain
point of view, or that won’t touch
certain stories or topics. That’s not
what we’re about.
I am a parent. My children are too
young to understand some of the
lifestyle issues that make the news
these days, and I honestly can’t tell
you exactly how my wife and I will
discuss all these things with them.
But I can assure you that ignoring
and avoiding discussion of these
issues will not be an option we
embrace.

Reader: In the wake of the recent
California Supreme Court ruling
legalizing homosexual marriages,
Kern County Auditor-Controller
Ann Barnett has been under fire for
making a budgetary decision.
In this climate of economic uncertainty,
I applaud her for exhibiting
fiscal responsibility. After all, isn’t
that why the taxpayers of Kern
County voted her into office?
Furthermore, I am under the opinion
that all marriage ceremonies,
conducted in any taxpayer-owned
city or county office, whether it be
between a man and woman or people
of the same gender, is disruptive to
the internal operations of that office.
It’s my understanding that marriage
licenses were issued Tuesday
and that her office conducted themselves
professionally and in accordance
of the law. Unfortunately,
The Californian has tried to paint a
different picture.
Thank you Ann Barnett! Keep up
the good work!
—Tom B. Underhill

Jenner: Your accusation that we
tried to “paint a different picture”
about Barnett’s office members
conducting themselves professionally
and in accordance with the law
is absolutely not true.
I also can’t buy your assertion
that Barnett came under fire for
making a budgetary decision.
Californian columnist Lois Henry
questioned her about her plans to
respond to the court’s ruling. Henry
and our editorial writers criticized
her for being evasive and for seeking
legal advice from advisers outside
the county counsel’s office.
Our reporter investigated the
numbers behind her statement that
her decision was driven by budgetary
issues, but while she’s disputed
our math, she hasn’t shared the
details of her own math with us —
or with the public.

Reader: My complaint is about the
comment in the paper on Sunday,
June 15 regarding the TV guide saying
that surveys showed that a small
percentage of readers used it.
I want to just say please do not
judge our intelligence like that. The
majority of us out here were never
asked our opinions. I have talked to
hundreds of people out here and
everyone of them are very passionate
about how much they used the
TV guide.
Please don’t test our intelligence
by saying a small percentage of
readers used it. You know, tell it
like it is.
I understand that you’re not going
to put it in again and that’s your prerogative
but there are many, many
of your readers out here who did
use it and are very disappointed
with The Californian because it hasn’t
been put back.
Just tell it like it is. Just tell us you
can’t afford to put the TV guide in,
but don’t say it’s because the readers
didn’t want it because that’s not
true. You know that as well as all of
us out here know it.
Thank you.
— Lois McAdoo

Reader: I really don’t expect to
get a response. I’d like to address
this to Mr. Jenner and also Mr.
Mullen.
There was a note in last Sunday’s
paper about the TV guide again. It
was expensive to produce and a
small percentage of readers used it.
That’s not necessarily true.
I’m one of the senior citizens in
this town who lives on a limited
income, does not have access to other
programming and I really
depended on that TV guide. I’m
sure I’m not the only one. There are
a lot of us. I think we should be considered.
— Ima Taylor

Jenner: You are not the only one.
We know the guide was very
important to the readers who relied
on it. But our Sunday paper reaches
many, many thousands of people.
And our research did indeed tell us
that most readers didn’t depend on it.
I’m sorry we couldn’t continue to
provide it.

Reader: (K)alifornia has finally
gone way overboard and the ship is
sinking. First, it was fish over man.
Second, it was condors over man.
Third, it was the spotted owl stopping
the health of our forests. Now
we have a travesty called “same-sex
marriage.” Who cares if Harry and
Dick get married? I have never
noticed The Californian getting
excited over a “REAL” marriage. In
fact, The Californian charges people
who “really” get married a fee to
have their picture in the paper.
It is time now (I guess) to stop
getting married and just run down
and get a test tube and be like the
“gay community.”
When will the insanity end?
— John Keyes

Jenner: We do charge for wedding
announcements. But we’ve
also published many, many stories
over the years about traditional
families, couples and marriages.

Reader: How many days in a row
has the front page of your pathetic
sports section featured Kobe
Bryant’s picture? Most people know
what he looks like now. Do the Lakers
have any other players on their
team? There must be some locals
who are worthy of your attention.
MLB coverage is a joke. Go Celtics!
A sports fan,
— Ralph Krafve

Jenner: You should’ve waited to
write till the championship series
ended. It’s hard to say we didn’t
give the Celtics their due, particularly
in the way we displayed photos
of the decisive games.
Reader: Today’s paper (June 20)
A1 headline (& text): “Woodland
Hills hits 113 degrees.” A5 story: “a
record 109 at Woodland Hills.”
So which was it? Or are there two
different Woodland Hills being referenced?
Your friend,
— Liz Keogh

Jenner: The Page One item
should’ve reflected the numbers
contained in the story — 109
degrees, in other words. I have no
explanation for the discrepancy.
We’ll try to be more careful.

Reader: This concerns Friday’s
editorial, “Who’s playing ‘political
games?’ I would like to discuss the
pejorative use of the term “extortion”
and other examples cited of
supposed “Republican” misuse of
their power as the “loyal minority”
regarding passage of the state budget.
Would The Californian editorial
page be so quick to yell “foul” if the
Republicans controlled the state
Legislature? If the Democrats were
the “loyal minority” extracting concessions
from the hypothetical
Republican-controlled budget
process, The Californian would
whistle a different tune joined by
Grumpy of the Seven Dwarfs. The
Californian would then applaud the
“masterful political power play” by
the Democrats!
No, The Californian can NOT
have it, as they seem to want it, both
ways. It is the political process. No,
there shall not be any steamrolling
allowed, nor will the Republicans
play dead.
As another example, there are
many reasons it takes a 2/3 vote
according to our national Constitution
to: Override vetoes, expel a
member of either House, convict of
Impeachment, ratify treaties, and
pass proposed Amendments
through both houses of Congress,
etc. It is our Republic.
— Larry Vernon Hallum

Editorial Page Editor Dianne
Hardisty responds: You betcha we
would object to these games — no
matter who is in charge. If the
Republicans controlled the Legislature
and the Democrats blocked the
budget to extort support for unrelated
legislation, we would howl our
heads off.
Hello, we have a BUDGET CRISIS.
Every day the state has to borrow
money to make ends meet puts
taxpayers further in debt. Nothing is
more important than forging a fair
and balanced state budget.

Reader: I wonder why media people
are so annoying? Why do they
follow up on stories that are not a
huge deal?
While I think that it is wrong for
an elected official to press her personal
beliefs on her constituents by
not performing civil marriages and
then not making a statement about
the real reason for it, is very wrong.
Gays have their glory; they march
in gay pride, which is ridiculous to
flaunt your homosexualness like it
is something to be proud of.
I believe that you are who you are
so why do you feel the need to press
it on everyone.
I think there is other news we
need to follow up on. Instead we get
news people who are rude and have
no respect for others. I used to work
at a local hospital where reporters
would show up with their pen and
paper and start questioning family
of people who had just died.
Reporters just pop in and ask questions
without any heart. They mob
everyone who will say something.
Take a hint when someone says
that they don’t want to talk to you.
Give him or her some space, have
some heart, and stop using the First
Amendment when asked to leave.
For the most part, the media
SUCKS at respecting people’s
boundaries.
—Marshall Smith-Bakersfield
Security Attendant
Kern County Government Center

Jenner: I can’t speak for “the
media,” only the behavior of the
staff of The Californian.
I can tell you that we don’t tolerate
reporters who have no regard
for the rights of ordinary people
who don’t want to speak to us.
Our staffers go to great lengths to
respect the rights and feelings of
people, especially those who are
cruelly thrust into the spotlight by
fate or circumstance. Our reporters
are very compassionate and display
great sensitivity when dealing with
people caught up by tragedy or
events outside their control.
At the same time, these same
staffers can be quite tenacious
when trying to get answers from
public officials and public figures
responsible for decisions and
actions affecting the public and our
readers. We also can be tenacious
when we’re denied access to things
that are public — whether that’s
public information found in documents,
or access to public areas in
county-owned and taxpayer-built
facilities.