Right Thinking - rightthinking's Blog

Right Thinking - rightthinking's Blog - Bakersfield.com http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking en-us McCarthy won't quiet down, luckily http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/32010 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/32010 Some people just don’t know when to shut up. <div class="story_assets"> <div>Fortunately, U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield is one of them.</div> </div> McCarthy, a champ of a talker, was an early instigator behind a burgeoning House energy protest, now heading into its third exhilarating week. In case you missed the story — and if you blinked you probably did — McCarthy was one of about 50 Republicans who took to the House floor Aug. 1 to protest Congress’ failure to vote on an energy bill before the five-week break. Dozens of Republicans, including McCarthy, were scheduled to make floor speeches that day on gas prices and related energy issues, but were abruptly silenced when Democrats pushed an adjournment resolution that passed by a single vote. The adjournment infuriated McCarthy and his fellow Republicans, who decided they’d have their say with or without the blessing of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who, until recently, refused to allow a vote on legislation that would permit new offshore oil drilling. Lights, cameras and microphones were systematically shut off, but McCarthy and Co. talked on, speaking in the dim light and without amplification to tourists who found their way into the gallery. Two weeks later, they’re still talking. They promise to keep talking until the speaker calls everyone back. Dems and their media pals continue to pooh-pooh the protest as a cornball publicity stunt, but McCarthy, who was home in Bakersfield this week rustling up support for Republican efforts, said it was a call to action. “If America was energy independent everything about our lives would change,” McCarthy says. “We’d certainly have a much different foreign policy. So let’s have the debate.” Yes, let’s. Let’s talk about a truly comprehensive bill that, along with tax breaks and consumer tax credits for businesses and consumers who adopt energy saving measures, includes pro-drilling amendments that will open up current restricted areas — which are about 85 percent of the areas off America’s coasts — and increase domestic oil and gas production. Let’s consider all our options, including nuclear, which has powered our Navy for decades, McCarthy says. And let’s be a lot less timid about an environmentally friendly exploration of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. “I went to Alaska and ANWR,” McCarthy says. “Every year we don’t explore there our resources are depleted by 15 percent. We know where the resources are and we can do this in an ecologically friendly way.” There are definite signs that Pelosi may be willing to start the debate, saying on “Larry King Live” this week she would consider a vote on offshore drilling if it were part of a broader package. I phoned Pelosi’s office to see what could have possibly inspired such a turnaround, but was assured by a Pelosi staffer (Madame Speaker is busy with a book tour) that the Republican protest “had nothing to do with it.” Sure it didn’t. “I’d have to ask her what transpired in that one week to change her mind,” McCarthy says. “We had to put the pressure on — one thing I’ve learned in Washington is that nothing moves without pressure.” McCarthy’s visit home was short; he’s heading back to Washington shortly to take another turn on the House floor. It’s too bad the lights are out. Such democracy in action is something we’d all like to see. Vegas' plan to run good news all around http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/31633 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/31633 Here’s a bit of sunshine for those of you who think we in the media only write about bad news. <div class="story_assets"> <div> <h4><a href="http://static.bakersfield.com/smedia/2007/10/03/18/228-Trustee_Chad_Vegas.standalone.prod_affiliate.25.jpg" rel="lightbox"><img height="539" alt="" src="http://static.bakersfield.com/smedia/2007/10/03/18/867-Trustee_Chad_Vegas.embedded.prod_affiliate.25.jpg" width="318" /></a> </h4> </div> <div> Chad Vegas, pastor, educator and rabble-rouser, will run for another term on the Kern High School District board of trustees. </div> </div> I can just hear the separation-of-church-and-state folks retching over their Corn Flakes, but Vegas’ decision to run again is good news for a lot of reasons. It’s good news for Vegas’ fellow board members, some of whom tell me the Vegas frequently vilified in the opinion page is not the man they work well with on education reform. It’s good news for our high school students, particularly those struggling to meet basic academic standards and for whom college is not an option. And it’s really good news for the local media, whose obsession with Vegas may be second only to The Canyons project and the Hillside Ordinance. It’s good news that almost didn’t happen. Until recently, Vegas was convinced he would not run again, telling his 150 or so church members “my life would be far easier, my schedule less cluttered, my emotional energies stronger and my reputation far less under attack if I dropped out of politics all together.” Then came the California Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage and Vegas was back in the battle. After considerable prayer and the ardent support of his family, he’s decided to run again and on the same “platform of moral responsibility” that got him elected the first time around. “As much as I want to focus on just the education issues, the onslaught of garbage coming from the California legislature is going to require a pushback on morality issues,” he says. Legislation passed just this week, he says, include only the most recent examples of the onslaught. No kidding. On Tuesday, the Senate approved a bill that would establish May 22 as Harvey Milk Day. The bill, now awaiting the governor’s signature, seeks to honor the assassinated San Francisco supervisor with a special day during which, among other things, public schools would be encouraged to “conduct suitable commemorative exercises.” Just who decides which “exercises” are “suitable,” I’m not sure, but I’m betting it won’t be the parents of the participating students. Also on Tuesday, the Senate passed another astonishing bit of legislation that, should Schwarzenegger sign it, will no longer allow schools to fire teachers for belonging to the Communist Party and will allow Communists to use public school property for their meetings. You know, just as long as they’re not plotting to overthrow the U.S. government or anything. Even with the judicial high jinks, Vegas promises he will focus most of his time on education reform — just as he always has. “The media gave excessive attention to In God We Trust, but very little to the fact we put in place freshman retention,” he says. “There’s been lot of press over my homosexual comments, but very little over the boot camps we started to help incoming freshmen get up to grade level.” Fellow trustee Joel Heinrichs says Vegas can, at times, be divisive, but typically agrees with his fellow board members on most “education reform-type issues.” “We do spend some amount of time on these social issues at the board meetings, but rarely, frankly, outside of them,” Heinrichs says. Vegas makes no predictions on the outcome of the election, but says he felt led by God to run again. And if he loses? “It’s because God wants me to,” he says. Win or lose. For Vegas, it’s all good news. The people will decide the same-sex marriage issue http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/30398 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/30398 <div id="content"> Looks like voters will still have a say on a same-sex marriage ban in November, thanks to the California Supreme Court’s decision to keep the measure on the ballot. <div class="story"> <div class="story_assets"> <div>Mighty kind of the Court, don’t you think?</div> </div> This is, after all, the same court that just two months ago basically told Californians their opinion on gay marriage didn’t count, that the one-man-one-woman definition approved in 2000 by 61 percent of the voters was unconstitutional. That decision on Wednesday no doubt inspired gay marriage supporters to try and shanghai the democratic process with their bid to keep Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act, off the ballot. The effort was over the top even for our Supreme Court, which unanimously and without comment refused to hear a challenge on the initiative. If it passes, Proposition 8 will overrule the Supreme Court decision in May. The pro-gay-marriage people are right to be nervous about leaving this decision where it rightfully belongs — with the people — but, really, what does it say about a cause when its supporters must circumvent democracy in order to uphold it? Answer: A lot, and none of it very nice. It also brings to mind Gov. Schwarzenegger’s recent remarks in regard to his support of the Supreme Court ruling. “I personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But at the same time I think that my, you know, belief, I don’t want to force on anyone else, so I think we should stay with the decision of the Supreme Court,” he said. So who’s forcing beliefs here? Could it be the folks frantically trying to keep the amendment off the ballot? Yes it could. The Supreme Court’s decision was, this time at least, appropriate, despite lame claims by gay rights groups that the signature petitions used to put the proposal on the ballot were “misleading.” Misleading? Please. When it comes to defining marriage, Californians are historically succinct and to the point. Signature collectors certainly didn’t have any trouble getting the message out, quickly collecting more than 1.1 million votes in time for the November election. There is strong support for a marriage-protection amendment, but just how much support depends on whose poll you’re reading. One Bay Area newspaper reported “a recent Field Poll showed a majority of voters support the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry in California,” though a host of others show most Californians actually want the amendment. A very recent Los Angeles Times poll showed that “54 percent of those polled supported the Amendment, while only 35 percent opposed it.” Whatever the correct ratio is now, come November, it’s going to be close. When declaring his support for the Supreme Court ruling, Schwarzenegger said there are “more important issues” to address in California and trying to pass “this initiative is a waste of time.” A waste of time? The governor can pooh-pooh the issue and his constituents if he wants, but protecting traditional marriage and family is about as important as it gets. Thankfully, Californians will have at least one more chance to say so. </div> </div> Fireworks lovers are their own worst enemy http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/29994 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/29994 On a pleasant July 4th back in 1979, my brother-in-law gathered a fistful of sparklers, bound them with duct tape, stuck the wad into the grass and lit it. <div class="story_assets"> <div>Nearly thirty years later, the ensuing explosion— the blinding white flash, the compression of the blast wave against my chest — remains one of the more vivid memories of my young adulthood.</div> </div> I'm reminded of that explosion every July, when the annual debate over a fireworks ban in Bakersfield roars to life. I'm generally opposed to bans, believing most to be intrusive government meddling in decisions we're perfectly capable of making on our own. But this Independence Day, it became clear to me why a fireworks ban is inevitable. In a word: guys. Guys and their innate and uncontrollable urge to tweak and toy with fireworks. To turn a satisfactory blast into one that shatters windows; to modify a “safe and sane” firework to the degree its detonation will cause small children to shriek and pets to run for cover. Not to mention guys' hankering for fireworks of the illegal variety. I can hear you guys now. “Well of COURSE we like 'em loud,” you're saying. “The bigger the bang, the better. And those “safe and sane” fireworks? About as thrilling as lighting candles on a birthday cake.” True. But that relentless tinkering and those illegal fireworks have brought us to the brink of a ban. When it comes to fireworks, we as a community — including those of us gals who applaud the guys' efforts — are our own worst enemy. Local elected officials have long resisted declaring a ban on fireworks, but flagrant disregard for laws governing their use and the cost to enforce them, may finally force their hand. Maybe it should. There's no maybe about it, says City Fire Battalion Chief Garth Milam, who, thinks allowing personal fireworks in the city and county is “foolishness.” “It's lawless behavior and we've winked at it,” Milam says. “This year we had to add about 30 additional staff just to enforce the law and deal with the consequences of the fireworks.” The city charges fireworks vendors $200 over and above their usual fees to help off set extra costs, but that amount doesn't touch the cost of consequences like the “home lost on Lomita Drive,” several smaller property fires and a number of injuries, Milam says. Alcohol, of course, was a factor in a number of the incidents, including one where a partyer threw a bucket of water on uniformed police officers. “We even had one person launch a bottle rocket that went right through the window of a neighbor's home, hitting and burning a woman inside,” he says. At the City's Animal Control office, staff saw an increase of 10 to15 lost and frightened animals per day the week of the Fourth, says Resource Management Director David Price. “This fireworks thing is a problem,” Price says. “Whether this is something the community is willing to sustain in order to keep the practice is the question.” It's a good question. The most obvious, cost effective, animal-loving, house-saving answer is, of course, a ban. A ban on personal fireworks in the city and county. A ban that, hopefully, will act as a catalyst for public, professional fireworks shows. Shows that beat safe-and-lame fireworks any day. Duck attack horrible, but tragedy is in youths http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/29630 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/29630 If we measure our collective health by the way we treat the least of those among us, then Bakersfield is looking pretty peaked these days. <div> <img height="512" alt="" src="http://static.bakersfield.com/smedia/2008/07/03/17/624-duck.embedded.prod_affiliate.25.jpg" width="318" /> Photo by Henry A. Barrios / The Californian Lyle the duckling that survived an attack by four teenagers swims in Lisa Andrew's bathroom sink. Lisa is Shannon Andrew's mother. The mother duck died, as did six of her seven ducklings. Lyle, the lone survivor, also swims in the family pool and gets the attention of the family dog that has been able to control his natural instinct. </div> Not since 9/11 have I so dreaded reading the news, so inconceivable are recent crimes and those suspected of committing them. We all know the stories by now. Three young boys are found naked in a trailer; a neighbor stands accused of molesting them. A former high school football coach is arrested on charges of possessing child pornography. Most tragic of all, an elderly man is savagely beaten to death as he goes about his morning routine of collecting aluminum cans. In a shocking turn, five teenage boys, some as young as 13, are suspects in the attack. These are only the most recent stories to make headlines, which brings me to one that won't, but should. One evening two weeks ago, 22-year-old Shannon Andrew and her 2-year-old daughter were in the driveway of her parents' Fairway Drive home, when a SUV load of men, each in his late teens or early 20s, suddenly stopped in front of the house. Unnerved by their staring, Andrew scooped up her toddler and hurried inside. As it turns out, it wasn't Andrew they were staring at. Peering into the fading light, Andrew could see and hear the young men as they leapt laughing from the car and began to “kick something up and down the street.” Later, after they tired of their sport and left, Andrew went to find what that something was. It wasn't until another car passed by, stirring up a cloud of feathers, that she spotted the still form lying on the street. The duck was still alive, but barely, her head bloodied, a dead duckling by her side. Andrew gently placed the duck on a towel as neighbors tried to round up surviving ducklings. They found only one. When the mother heard her duckling's cries she tried to rally and rise, but her body was too broken. She died about 10 minutes later. “They had tortured her,” says Andrew. “It was so sad, I just wanted to cry.” It's a happy ending for the duckling which, for now, has found a caring home with Andrew and her family. A more grave issue - one greater than the economy, the presidential election or the price of gas - is the sadism and cruelty of youths who torture animals and beat our elderly to death. Why? Why do they do it? Because they're angry. And getting angrier. Dr. Dean Haddock, a Bakersfield psychologist, says repeated exposure to violence, family breakdown, violent video games and films and the lack of religious education have conspired to create a frightening and growing population of calloused children and teens. “It's an aftermath of the 60s,” Haddock says. “I haven't lost hope yet, but people have to realize what a problem this is.” It's not that teens are committing more crimes. According to the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, violent crime among young people has dropped significantly in recent years. It's just that our criminals are getting younger, their crimes more cruel. And it's not just boys, either. Girls are jumping into the fray, too. It's time, Haddock says, for a “come to Jesus meeting.” He's right. It's time to get serious about teen and youth violence, about combating it with every resource we have before it's too late. If it isn't already. He gave her the White House for celebration http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/29223 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/29223 A small wedding, a quiet honeymoon. That’s all Diane Rutledge expected when then-beau Jerry Bryson proposed last year. <div class="story_assets"> <div> <h4><a rel="lightbox" href="http://static.bakersfield.com/smedia/2008/06/26/12/769-DianeandJerryBryson.standalone.prod_affiliate.25.jpg"><img height="212" alt="" width="318" src="http://static.bakersfield.com/smedia/2008/06/26/12/583-DianeandJerryBryson.embedded.prod_affiliate.25.jpg" /></a></h4> </div> <div> Diane and Jerry Bryson pose with President and Laura Bush at the White House in March 2008. The couple were at the White House for Jerry Bryson and Laura Bush’s 44th class reunion. They graduated from Robert E. Lee High School in Midland, Texas. (Photo courtesy of the Brysons.) </div> </div> It was, after all, the second marriage for both, she having lost her pilot-husband, Phil, in a crop dusting crash; he a widower since wife Debbie died of a brain tumor. A modest celebration, followed by a week in Hawaii. She asked for Maui. He gave her the White House. The couple’s plans for a Hawaiian get-away changed abruptly when, just two months before the wedding, Bryson received an invitation from the President and Mrs. Bush to join them March 29 at the White House for the 44th reunion of Robert E. Lee High School, class of 1964. Seems that Bryson and Laura Bush — Laura Welch, back then — attended the Midland, Texas high school at the same time, or did until Bryson’s folks moved the family to Bakersfield his senior year. Bryson ended up graduating from Bakersfield High School, but left his heart in Midland. Fortunately, he also left a forwarding address. This wasn’t the first time Bryson was invited to party with the Bushes — he and Debbie attended Lee High’s “33 and a Third” class reunion at the Governor’s Mansion in Austin, when Bush was governor of Texas. This time, though, the reunion fell on the same weekend Bryson and his bride were scheduled to marry. No problem. The giddy couple, both staunch Republicans, moved their wedding up a week, marrying on March 21. Instead of Maui, they flew to New York, where they spent two days before heading to Washington, D.C. It turned out to be the trip and time of their lives. The Brysons spent five days in the nation’s capitol, arriving at the White House in time for a Friday night pre-party and a grand entrance by Bush via presidential helicopter on the South Lawn. Not all in the crowd of onlookers were there for the reunion. Some, like U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, whom Bryson noticed standing at his elbow, was there with his family for movie night with the president. At least that’s what he told Bryson. The newlyweds met with the Bushes the following day in the opulent Diplomatic Reception Room, where presidents routinely greet foreign dignitaries, prime ministers and potentates. The Brysons quickly posed with the First Couple for a formal portrait, a nerve racking moment, at least for Diane. “All I could think about was I had my arm around the president of the United States,” she says. Once photos were taken — the Bushes posed with each of the few hundred guests in attendance — the party was on. The classmates danced to the music of the Jelly Rolls, reportedly Mrs. Bush’s favorite band, and feasted on a Texas spread of hors d’oeuvres like mini cheeseburgers, small slices of pizza, diminutive chicken fried steaks and tiny pecan pies. Taxpayers counting the cost can relax. Attendees paid their own way, $150 a head. It was a bargain, said the Cinderella couple, who, for one evening of their already memorable honeymoon, reveled in the grandeur and history of what is arguably the world’s most famous residence. And chatting up the leader of the free world wasn’t bad either, Jerry said. “After we finished with the pictures, I turned to the president, looked at Diane and said, ‘I did pretty good, didn’t I,’” he said. “Bush smiled and gave me the thumbs up and said, ‘You sure did.’” Recalls should be last resort, not first http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/28828 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/28828 Is it my imagination, or is Kern County suffering from a severe outbreak of recall fever? Calls to “kick ’em to the curb” have become the knee-jerk norm in recent weeks, whenever an elected official — usually a conservative elected official — makes a decision or statement not popular with those who don’t share his or her views. It’s becoming quite the trend. And an ugly one at that. The effort to recall City Councilman Ken Weir, last I heard, is plodding along, with signature gatherers trying to convince the good people of Ward 3 that Weir’s proposal to fire Planning Commissioner Russell Johnson was egregious enough to warrant his removal from office. Weir’s proposal may have been ill-advised, but certainly within his purview and not nearly as “disruptive to the functions of the Planning Commission and the City Council” as supporters of the recall would like voters to believe. Other damning examples of Weir’s incompetence, as cited by those who instigated the recall effort, include the councilman’s poor “attitude” and his one-time use of the “In God We Trust” city seal on his campaign literature. Wow. Maybe we could skip the recall and go straight for the tar and feathers. In other recall efforts, a few poor sports in Pine Mountain Club have pledged to start a recall against newly re-elected Supervisor Ray Watson in what basically sounds like a bad case of sour grapes. And somebody, identified in media reports as “a man,” picked up forms to initiate a recall against Auditor-Controller-County Clerk Ann Barnett, ostensibly over her decision to end wedding ceremonies at the county clerk's office. Barnett has served her constituents well in her eight years in office and exercised the discretion of that office when deciding to halt all county-performed wedding ceremonies. In order to bump Barnett from office, “the man” will have to come up with about 38,000 signatures of registered voters in conservative Kern County, to get a recall measure on the ballot. He should buy sunscreen. He’s going to be out there for a while. Most recently, there is Chad Vegas, a pastor and Kern High School District trustee, who — gasp! — had the nerve to write a letter to county supervisors, insisting they support Barnett. If the recent barrage of letters to the editor are any indication, those offended by Vegas’ sentiments want to see him recalled, reproved and run out of town. Or at least out of office. There’s no question it was a real barn burner of a letter, one the local media characterized as “threatening.” And what was it about the letter that was so threatening? “Please know that I will work vigorously to remove from office any supervisor that does not support her (Barnett) in this difficult time,” Vegas wrote. I asked Vegas precisely what he meant by “remove.” “I meant that come election time, I will campaign vigorously against them,” he said. “And it’s not a threat. It’s a promise.” Wow. Not exactly a pistol to the temple, as threats go, but apparently enough to send the more delicate among us on a frantic search for smelling salts. So Vegas wrote a snarky letter to some elected officials. It’s one of those things involved citizens do. So the gentle approach isn’t something Vegas is particularly fond of. Is that reason enough to call for his removal as a trustee, for an investigation into his church? Hardly. Weir, Barnett and Vegas are able and dedicated public servants. They have faith in their core philosophies and will not be swayed, a trait that is as admirable as it is controversial. If Kern County is very lucky, they may stick around for a while. Barnett's views shouldn't be fodder for obsessive media http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/28390 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/28390 I  realize the decision by Auditor-Controller-County Clerk Ann Barnett to stop all county-performed wedding ceremonies is controversial, but, yikes, we haven’t witnessed this kind of media coverage in Kern County since our last multiple-murder case. <div class="story_assets"> <div>No laws were broken, no rules were bent, no office policies trod upon, 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.</div> </div> This, despite the fact her decision will not keep any couple, gay or straight, from getting a marriage license come June 17. Barnett cited space restraints and budget concerns as her reasons for halting the ceremonies, but frustrated media types all but camped out in her office foyer in an effort to dig up the REAL explanation. 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. Those opposed to the no-wedding edict also point to Barnett’s early consults with the conservative legal group Alliance Defense Fund as evidence of her REAL intentions. But attorneys with the ADF — characterized by one reporter as a “gay-marriage opposition group” — say Barnett “is taking a legitimate legal position” they’re willing to defend. 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? Budget problems, over-burdened staffs and space restraints — especially space restraints — are ongoing issues in Barnett’s offices, as they are for many county administrators. Given the anticipated hike in requests for wedding ceremonies — 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. As for her personal feelings on the issue, they are her own and should stay that way. “The main issue here is that she has the legal right as clerk to decline to perform marriage ceremonies and she’s exercised that discretion,” says Brian Raum, ADF senior legal counsel. “She sought our advice and it’s our position that any clerk who decides not to perform ceremonies is entitled to a defense.” Until the voters say otherwise, she’s also entitled to run her office as she sees fit. “My decision was based on facts and the fact that it’s discretionary,” Barnett said Friday. “If people don’t agree with it, I’m sorry, but it’s my decision to make and I made it to the best of my ability.” 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. High school district admits Bible blunder http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/28006 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/28006 Kern High School District officials take note: If you’re going to violate students’ civil rights, it might be a good idea to dodge the valedictorians and mock-trial champs. <div class="story_assets"> <div>Those kids know their stuff.</div> </div> One of those kids, 18-year-old Brant Bonetti, called me a week ago Thursday, the day after his graduation from Stockdale High School. A constitutional right has been trampled, he said, apologies and assurances are in order. He couldn’t be more right. Seems that Bonetti, the outgoing president of the school’s Fellowship of Christian Athletes, came up with the idea of giving a Bible to any graduating senior who wanted one. Permission was asked for and received, money raised and Bibles bought. According to state and district regulations, every student enjoys “the right to distribute publications, printed materials and petitions on school premises, subject to regulations relating to time, place and manner of distribution.” Yet five minutes into the give-away, school officials suddenly demanded the group stop handing out the Bibles, by order of the district office. Seconds later, Bonetti was in the principal's office asking why. “I told him these Bibles are gifts our club bought for the seniors — that’s allowable,” Bonetti said. “I’m not overly emotional, but I was troubled to say the least.” Bonetti asked which district official put a stop to the giveaway, but Stockdale officials wouldn’t say. Bonetti returned to his fellow club members moments later, planning his first ever act of peaceful resistance. “I told my students the school was telling us to leave, but that I was going to stay and continue passing out Bibles and they could stay or go home,” he said. “I told them we were going to be extremely respectful, but this was wrong, morally and constitutionally.” Bonetti and his fellow students continued to give away Bibles until a school official — after getting “further clarification from district” — closed the box of Bibles and ordered the students off campus. The students, Bonetti said, moved to the parking lot where they “handed Bibles out from the back of a truck.” It was a disappointing end to an otherwise stellar four years of high school for Bonetti, who, this week, consulted legal counsel on the Bible issue. He didn’t want to leave his school, he said, until he was assured the rights of his fellow students would be upheld. “I’m not asking for exclusive privilege — it can be a Bible or a Koran and no one is forced to take them,” he said. “Just because someone is offended is not a valid excuse to shoot someone’s rights down. This needs to be resolved.” And so it will be. Chagrined district officials said Friday the call to halt the Bible giveaway was a bad one, a “misinterpretation of our own regulation.” “We have a process whereby students can obtain permission to do this,” said district spokesman John Teves. “These students followed every bit of that process; they did everything the right way for the right reason.” Teves declined to confirm the identity of the offending official, saying it was an internal personnel matter. He did say that steps would be taken to “make sure all (school) sites and site representatives are aware of this situation and how it should have been interpreted and handled differently.” Those interested in the identity of the official in question should stay tuned — Kern High School District Trustee Chad Vegas, who tends to be rather passionate about such matters, has pledged to bring the issue up at a future board meeting. Demonstrating the grace he was denied, Bonetti said he harbors no hard feelings for any school official and was satisfied with the district’s promise. “I’ve appreciated my time at Stockdale immensely, I’m extremely thankful for that,” he said. “At the same time, the way that situation was handled was wrong and I needed to do what I could to make it right.” Bonetti will soon leave Bakersfield for Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. I only hope, for their sake, they’re ready for him. Gay marriage ruling an act of judicial tyranny http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/27562 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/27562 I don't know what was more shocking about the recent state Supreme Court decision to redefine marriage — the reasoning behind the ruling or the justices’ blatant disregard for the will of the people. <div class="story_assets"> <div>A lot of Californians are still reeling from the court's 4-3 decision to overturn Proposition 22, the measure that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman and was supported in 2000 by 61 percent of state voters.</div> </div> That definition, concluded the four, is unconstitutional. The court's ruling begs a host of questions, not the least of which is why Californians should even bother to vote. With activist judges waiting in the wings to override votes and fabricate new rights, what's the point? It's a valid question, but let’s not give up on the system just yet. Voters may have the chance to rectify this latest act of judicial tyranny when supporters of traditional marriage place a constitutional marriage amendment — now clearly a necessity — on the ballot in November. In the meantime, same-sex marriages may take place as early as mid-June, while we of the slippery slope school are left to ponder the logic, or lack thereof, behind the court's ruling. The main problem with the court's decision, besides its complete disregard for the democratic process, is that it doesn't expand marriage; it alters its core meaning. That's one of the findings of Heritage Foundation researchers, who posted a succinct and insightful analysis of the ruling on the foundation <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/family">Web site.</a> The ruling, they say, isn't about race or a particular people group, it's about the nature and purpose of marriage, which the court brushed aside. “To redefine marriage so it's not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers and children formally severs the institution from its nature and purpose, remaking the institution into a mere contract between any two individuals.” The analysis also points out that “changing the definition of marriage has vast cultural consequences, including religious liberty implications.” Those who doubt those implications are simply ignoring reality, says Greg Scott, spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group. “You will see all sorts of situations where the right to exercise our faith in ways we see fit are going to be seriously compromised,” he says. Think he's exaggerating? It's already happening. In New Mexico, Elaine Huguenin, a Christian and a professional wedding photographer, was hauled before the state's Human Rights Commission for declining to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. In April, the commission found that Huguenin had violated the state's anti-discrimination law and directed her to pay more than $6,600 in attorney's fees to the two women who filed the complaint. Last year in New Jersey, a lesbian couple sued the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association after it refused, for religious reasons, to allow the couple to hold a civil union ceremony on the camp's property. So far the camp has only lost tax-exempt status on part of its property, but the homosexual advocacy group that's threatening to appeal that consequence says it's “looking for a bigger victory.” How big a victory the group will settle for is anyone's guess — utter destruction, perhaps? Since gay marriage in California is now a “constitutional right,” what protection is there for those whose faith beliefs forbid such unions? What will priests, pastors, churches and private property owners be forced to condone in the years to come? Through the years, the state of California has given to domestic partners every right currently enjoyed by married couples, but even that has failed to satisfy. It is God's blessing they want, it is His approval they will have. Or else.