No problem, they can always quit if they refuse to work.   How long would they last if they refused to marry an interracial couple?

Like any other issue, if "following orders" affronts a civil servant, get another job.

Just curious: What's PC for addressing married deviates? Mr. and Mr? Man and man? Which last name gets used? Which one gets given away by the father? Which one holds the boguet? You may now kiss the....bride? partner? each other? Who do the brides maids attend? And finally, what happens to the legal status when the voters define marriage next November?

Ummm, I think county workers have just about seen it all.  Right?  You gotta have some kind of tough skin to work for the county....

spam code BINGG

Kern County Counsel Bernard Barmann and Auditor-Controller-County Clerk Ann Barnett are less forceful than Degadillo about when and how Kern County would issue same-sex marriages.

They say they will abide by the law, when and if it takes effect in mid-June

Here's the official press-release statement from Barnett's office:

"On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court made a decision to overturn Prop 22, which had affirmed that marriage was only between a man and a woman. This decision does not take effect immediately, and until it does, the County Clerk is not authorized, and will not issue marriage licenses or perform civil marriage ceremonies for same sex couples."

Both Barmann and Barnett say they are waiting to see if the court will approve a motion to delay implementation until November — when a proposed ballot-initiative could overturn the decision.

James Burger

Californian staff writer

The court knew full well about the November ballot initiative when they made the call, I doubt they will get the delay .

Let's see 'em pray their way out of this one.

Rocky Delgadillo...hmmm...didn't he spend millions running for Attorney General, only to get obliterated by Jerry Brown?

AMEN Woof.

What's PC for addressing married deviates?

The same thing you use for married deviates now, I guess.  "The happy couple" works for me.

The only time I found being around gay couples a problem was at a friends square dance lesson session.  I thought I was lost every time the male came around that was supposed to be the female.  He thought it was as funny as I did.  I think the couples can work out any terminology they want. I would hate to see someone lose their job over their religious convictions so I hope there are others that can take care of business if there is a problem. 

I imagine they can make the case that it was not part of their job. If they are on a contract, they can argue that it is not in the original scope of their employment.

It's like if my school decided I needed to teach kids in other countries for part of the day and brought a camera into my classroom for me to do it. While I would heartily do it, someone who didn't want to wouldn't have to because our contract doesn't include televised teaching.

Performing marriages isn't part of their job?  I believe they'd have a hard time supporting that assertion.   

What if a teacher at your school had an all-white class and decided not to teach the new black kid who's moved into the neighborhood?

Very simple Mr X and Mr X, same-sex couple who marry may or may not take the name of their spouse. My spouse and I decided not to take each others last name since the combinded last name would have been XXXXXXXXXXXX-XXXXXXXXXX which is kind of long.

I talked my spouse out of taking my last name--too hard to spell.  I shoulda taken hers...

They are re-defining what a marriage has traditionally been in this country. It would be like asking me to teach adults instead of children. It's still teaching, they are still poeple, but it's very different in approach.

Given that there are lots of people who can marry couples, it shouldn't be long before offices figure out a solution.

Random, I knew a woman who would get married, like, every year or two. When I last ran into her, she was 30 and had been married eight times. One day I asked her, "What the hell's your last name these days, anyway?"

Lotsa trips to DMV for that gal.

I don't care if they have a designated person in the courthouse who specializes in same-sex marriages--so long as the happy couple isn't treated any differently from any other.

.

If a clerk were to refuse to marry one couple for personal reasons, and express that refusal to the couple, I would expect that clerk to lose his/her job.  Same for pharmacists.  If a pharmacy tech tells me he won't fill my prescription for "personal reasons," that tech should be gone.  If he tells his boss, and his boss makes other arrangements, I don't have a problem with that.

As an aside, I never see anyone casting stones at straight couples who register as domestic partners for say, better insurance coverage.   Could a court clerk be offended by that sin as well?

According to the couple, even the individual, marriage is a religious rite or a mere formality. It is also a contract. (None of these aspects seem to be taken seriously if the divorce rate is an indication.) In this respect, two consenting adults have a right to enter into a lawful contract. The contention is the definition of marriage. I am assuming the court ruled within the definition of what a marriage is. Come November, the voters will decide the definition of marriage and it is a foregone conclusion that it will exclude same sex couples. Society is not ready to embrace homosexuality as a "normal" relationship within the context of matrimony anymore than polygamy. Either lifestyle is out of my realm and not something I can relate to. That's most of us.

Fortunately, democracy is designed to accomodate things which are beyond your ability to relate to, catpaw.  You don't even have to lift a finger.  The anti-marriage proposition may pass in November--at this point, I don't think it will.  Hear the howls when the legal scholars note that that measure, too, conflicts with the equal protection clause.

I'm a Bakersfield native now living in Montreal, Quebec where same-sex marriages have been legal for 4+ years. No problems whatsoever on any level. It's a non-issue here and will eventually be the same in most of the US in the coming years.