Gay Marriage? I think NOT!

County Clerk Ann Barnett (of Kern County) decided her office would not perform ANY marriage ceremonies starting June 13th -- just days shy of when same-sex marriages become legal in California. (emphasis added)

The move has prompted prominent opponents of same-sex marriage to travel to Bakersfield in recent days and rally in support of Barnett. It has outraged others, including some local opponents of gay marriage who say her decision also adversely impacts straight couples.

"Today doesn't really have a special meaning for us," Davis said before the ceremony.

He didn't want to express an opinion on same-sex marriage, he said, because he was in uniform and didn't want to violate any Marine Corps policies. But his aunt, Judy Olsen, who helped raise Davis, said gay and lesbian couples have every right to wed.

"As long as they're happy, they have the right to get married just like anybody else does," she said.

The mother of another bride, however, disagreed.

"I believe in the sanctity of marriage. It's between a man and a woman," said Marti Ewing, Camerer's mother.

While the Kern Co. Clerk has faced suspicion from gay marriage supporters for her timing in deciding to stop all marriage ceremonies, others are backing her actions.

"The California Family code still says that marriage is between a man and a woman. They've created legal confusion," says Ken Mettler of the Bakersfield Republican Assembly.

Officials in Butte County also said recently they will no longer officiate at civil weddings there. Activists with the Campaign for California Families have urged clerks to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"I applaud what (Barnett is) doing," said Bob Courtney, 61, who waited in line Thursday to get a marriage license so that he and his fiancee, Debbie Garrett, 51, can be married next month in a wedding ceremony in their Bakersfield backyard. "I'm a Christian. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. And I'm being nice when I say that."

Garrett added: "I'm OK with it, but I don't want to see it, which I guess probably means I'm really not OK with it."

atomicant said:
this is like watching children play.

'screw you guys, i'm going home.'

fucking morons.

Allegro said:
There is a bold argument that if marriage is a sacred (religious) act deserving 'sanctitious' rules, it should not be a legal institution at all. Separation of Church and state, y'all. Get married in church/synagogue/mosque, whatever, and don't expect any rights or privileges from the government because of it. That way you can keep out whoever the fuck you want to. Equal rights for all, bitches.


Of course, I still want to be covered under my dude's health insurance. Off to City Hall I go...

Hooraydiation said:

That's essentially Obama's position, albeit with civil unions emerging as a completely secular replacement for marriage's role as an institution that provides benefits to committed partners, regardless of heterosexuality or homosexuality.

Marriage, in turn, would just be a ceremony with no legal implications.

coyotemike said:

That would be great if they would finally realize that the whole things should be under civil contract law, where it is simply a legally binding agreement signed by ANY two legal adults. No more fuss, no more discussion, simple rules: if you are not a legal adult, you cannot enter into this contract; if you are, then you can. Weddings could last 5 minutes (6 if the pen runs out of ink), where the terms of the contract are outlined, the two parties sign, the witnesses sign, the document is notarized, the end.

Mr_Matt_ said:
So individual counties and or clerks have the right to simply deny all marriages? How do they have this authority?

mingol said:

That's just what I was thinking. What they're doing can't possibly be legal.

Hooraydiation said:

Clearly these are people with no reservations about changing marriage laws.

mingol said:

That's just what I was thinking. What they're doing can't possibly be legal.

mydogfarted said:
Well, it avoids any discrimination issues.

bald_eagle said:

Nope. The clerk doesn't have a monopoly. California Family Code Section 400 says (assuming it's current):

EDIT: And there are others in the next couple of sections.

Admiral_Pants said:
The way I heard it, they were expecting a large number of same-sex couples applying for licenses, and they didn't have the staff to keep up with both ceremonies and licenses, so they stopped performing ceremonies so they would be able to issue licenses in a timely manner. Seemed prudent and reasonable to me.

coyotemike said:

That would be great if they would finally realize that the whole things should be under civil contract law, where it is simply a legally binding agreement signed by ANY two legal adults. No more fuss, no more discussion, simple rules: if you are not a legal adult, you cannot enter into this contract; if you are, then you can. Weddings could last 5 minutes (6 if the pen runs out of ink), where the terms of the contract are outlined, the two parties sign, the witnesses sign, the document is notarized, the end.

Mr_Matt_ said:
So individual counties and or clerks have the right to simply deny all marriages? How do they have this authority?

It reminds me on the pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. It's your fucking JOB to do it.

LSlice said:

Yikes. One is a government function (even though it probably shouldn't be) and the other is a private business.

In the case of the pharmacy thing this is a great example of the positive side of the free market. Of course a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription, if he chooses. His employer of course, can choose to fire him. If the pharmacy is down with selling birth control, you can take your business else where.

Tigerwong said:
One military man and his fiancee who are residents of Kern Country, had to change their marriage plans so that they could get married before the little moratorium came into effect. They were original going to get married on the 17th of June, which is the 5th anniversary of when they started dating. now their wedding date holds much less significance.