Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Some Calif. clerks to refuse all marriage ceremonies to protest gay weddings
Share:
by Barry Artiste | June 7, 2008 at 04:38 am
514 views | 40 Recommendations | 18 comments
Photos
Barry Artiste, Now Public Contributor
How refreshing that two Marriage official in California have decided for themselves that Gay Marriage is wrong, and will refuse to officate. This despite a ruling into law allowing it.
Perhaps these Matrimonial officials whose jobs I am sure are taxpayer funded (By taxpaying Gays I am sure) should find another line of work which allows them the freedom of their convictions, perhaps employment in the exciting career of Drive Thru Window, where they can Super Size their beliefs to the masses in the form of Fries and a Shake.
SAN FRANCISCO - As same-sex couples prepare to wed later this month in California, at least one county clerk in the conservative Central Valley is preparing to sidestep the state high court's legalization of gay marriage by shutting down all marriage ceremonies.
Kern County's Ann Barnett and Merced County's Stephen Jones issued statements this week stating they will issue the new gender-neutral marriage licenses as required by law on June 17, but refused to preside over any of the ceremonies, citing space and staff constraints.
In Barnett's case, she plans to stop performing marriage ceremonies for all couples as of June 14.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
Barry Artiste
Vancouver, Canada
Most Recommended Stories in World
Recommendations (40)
Anonymous user
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (18)
at 06:25 on June 7th, 2008
Unbelievable!! I have never heard of anything so blatantly wrong in my life. I really hope the Governor or somebody can step in and remove them from their jobs and stop them from stopping "all marriages" before June 17th. Somebody really needs to shake up Barnett and teach her a lesson about civics and her job description. I am so disgusted I can barely find the words to write about this. I am a straight person, but absolutely believe in marriage rights for all people. For these two "clerks" to choose not to marry anyone to get around marrying gay persons, it just unreal. I hope they get a reality check, like the unemployment line.
at 06:50 on June 7th, 2008
I agree with pixieclipx. No matter their beliefs, it's just not their call to refuse to perform marriages. If I were to block all stories with which I disagreed, that would be unprofessional, disingenuous, and pretty much BS. This is on a much larger scale, though, and I'm pretty sure what the Kern and Merced County clerks are doing is illegal.
at 06:57 on June 7th, 2008
Thanks to you both for your comments, I am confident now that this has hit the media, these two will be looking for gainful employment elsewhere if they do not toe the line.
at 08:42 on June 7th, 2008
What do our readers and contributors think about this?
(Also our front-page poll of the day)
at 09:19 on June 7th, 2008
Sounds pretty petty. However, as long as they are issuing the certificates and not presiding over any ceremonies for any couple, they probably are within their rights. If their office requires they preside, that is a different matter.
I have two questions;
1. Are these elected positions?
2. How much revenue will they cost their local government by not presiding?
at 15:13 on June 7th, 2008
This could be the next Roe v. Wade. What we have here is judges overruling the will of the people. I thought we lived in a democracy.
at 19:22 on June 7th, 2008
Barry Artiste, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 19:58 on June 7th, 2008
Big T - I am coming across several arguments for the "will of the people". The "will of the people" cannot, and must not ever, over-ride the "rights of the people," the true democracy.
at 21:39 on June 7th, 2008
Shouldn't it also be the "right" of the people to pray whenever and wherever they wanted? Why is it OK for gay marriage but not OK for religious teachers, for example, to lead their students in prayer?
It seems like a lot of people like to call things "rights" when their will has not been voted in by the people. It's a nice way to circumvent the will of the people, I guess, when you call something a "right."
at 21:45 on June 7th, 2008
I think it is called the "Right of Convenience" in other words, whatever the stunned ass politicians wish us to have as rights. Time to vote those asswipes out of office. Thanks for angering my blood there BigT. haha
at 22:24 on June 7th, 2008
Actually, I think the people of California voted to make marriage only between one man and one woman through a proposition. The same thing has happened in every state that this issue has come up.
at 04:38 on June 9th, 2008
Big T - "Shouldn't it also be the "right" of the people to pray whenever..." I am going to make an assumption that you are referencing the removal of prayer from school and I am answering based on this assumption.
See Abington School District v. Schempp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_v._Curlett
The decision declared school sponsored Bible-reading unconstitutional, violating 1st and 14th Amendment rights for the reason that it raised the issue that some children were being taught religious doctrine (Christian) which was contrary to "beliefs they held and to their familial teaching." It is a fair and just argument, and the Supreme Court made an appropriate decision, in my opinion.
Students are not prevented from praying or holding "Bible-study" groups on school campuses, however, they must follow guidelines for establishing them. It is against the law to prevent students from establishing "Bible-study" groups on school campuses.
Parents have the right to enroll their children in private schools (religion). Many religious denominations offer private education.
"Why is it OK for gay marriage...?" Chief Justice Ronald George "penned" the 121 page ruling http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF. Here again, the arguments are just and valid, and it is my opinion that the Supreme Court made an appropriate decision.
"It seems like a lot of people like to call things "rights"
when their [rights] [have] not been voted [on] by the people."
Correction: Should read:) when their [rights have been voted against] by "the people."
at 19:59 on June 7th, 2008
Thanks Barry!
at 21:23 on June 7th, 2008
Thanks to all of you for your comments and flags , I do not know US law, but in Canada if they tried this, they would be fired and possibly sued. Certainly now I am sure these two have been reprimanded or worse
at 02:28 on June 8th, 2008
Barry Artiste, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 21:19 on June 8th, 2008
Thanks St Valentine
at 04:52 on June 9th, 2008
I particularly like your tongue in cheek commentary. There's not a great deal else to say apart from what you've already said!
at 05:00 on June 9th, 2008
Thanks General for the comments and flag