Kern County clerk stung by criticism of her decision to halt civil weddings at her offices

[davidinalameda]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-kern13-2008jun13,0,1393571.story

Ann Barnett says she's always tried to do the right thing, whether for her church, her five children, her husband of 31 years or the people she serves as Kern County's elected clerk and auditor-controller.

So she's bewildered by the anger that's come her way since she decided -- just before gay marriages become legal -- to stop holding all civil weddings at her county offices.

On Thursday, she appeared stung by critics who have labeled her a "religious terrorist" and called for her resignation; by the hate mail that has flooded her office; by the unceasing requests for interviews, so many that she has unplugged her home phone.

"I'm just a county clerk trying to do my job," said the tall and soft-spoken 53-year-old, dressed in business attire, hands folded primly on her lap. "I wasn't out to make a statement."

what a lying sack of crap

[Fenris]

1. LOL! It's totally not because I hate gay marriage!

I'm only represented by the Alliance Defense Fund!

[Webster Green]

2. She's trying to do her job, by not doing her job?

More religious insanity. :silly:

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Actually, doing the civil ceremonies is not part of the job per se

Judges and some local government clerks may officiate at wedding ceremonies, but that is not actually a part of their job description. Had this clerk stated she would refuse to issue marriage licenses, that would be dereliction; but that is not what she said would happen.

[DBoon]

8. then maybe she should have waited for elected officials to decide

rather than making the decision on her own?

Is it her job to set policies like this?

I mean in the way a representative democracy should work, rather in her own wounded victimized religious mind

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. As county clerk, yes, it is her job to set policy like this

As I recall, county clerks in California are the head of their county's public records department. It is their job to set aspects of policy, provided that they work within the bounds set by state and county law and regulations. There is no law or regulation that requires county officials to conduct civil ceremonies, although they may if they have the time; I'm pretty sure that the maximum they may charge as officiants is set by law. They may chose not to officiate and they may chose to charge less than the statutory maximum, provided that they do so in a manner that does not violate state and county law. This is why, as stated elsewhere, she could not refuse to officiate at only same-sex marriage, as that kind of discrimination would violate state law. It is not a violation of state law, and well within her rights as county clerk, to set a policy holding that members of her department would not be excercising the priviledge (not duty) of officiating civil marriage. It is foolish, as most of the fee goes to the officiant, but not illegal in and of itself.

Mind you, her attitude is reprehensible and she deserves all the scorn she has been getting. But let's make sure she is being given the scorn she deserves and not scorn over made-up things.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Karma can be a real bitch

Let's hear it for karma! :toast:

[msongs]

5. typical bible thumping liar - its ALL about her religious views nt

[ruggerson]

6. They have the EMAILS from this liar, where she was appealing to rightwing legal groups to defend her

because she expected to get sued.

The woman is both a religious terrorist AND a liar.

[xchrom]

7. her marriage must have been threatened by those gay marriages.

:eyes:

[Falcon_Lights1916]

10. Probably...

[DarkTirade]

11. Honestly... I don't care about this woman.

Writing nasty emails isn't going to change her mind. And she can't stop issuing marriage certificates, all she can do is decide not to perform ceremonies. It's a nuisance, yes. But little more than that.

[davidinalameda]

12. its more than just a nuisance

some people can't afford a church wedding

and some people want a civil ceremony

these ceremonies are money makers for the counties; you get however much a pop for about 15 minutes work

[DarkTirade]

14. She's just a sad little person trying to piss in everyone's cheerios.

And she may succeed for a few... but I'm willing to settle for shredded wheat if I have to.

[Zuiderelle]

13. She was bewildered. Yeah, right.

"I just don't understand why I get all this anger from black people, when all I did was put a burning cross on my neighbor's front lawn."

[Oeditpus Rex]

15. Let's be fair, now

What she did was the racial equivalent of taking her house off the market when she found out a black couple were going to make an offer — which is plenty bad enough.

[Zuiderelle]

17. Ok, fair enough. Your analogy is honed a little closer.

Bottom line is that she's a bigot who's surprised by other people's bad reaction to her bigotry.

[Oeditpus Rex]

19. No argument there

Even if it held that she's afraid of enraged rednecks storming the clerk's office, that's still a manifestation of bigotry. If you're an elected and sworn county official, you take the necessary steps to ensure the protection of rights of all.

[and-justice-for-all]

16. I thought/read/heard it was just a halt in the ceremonies..

but you could still get your license?

And it is bullshit that she was just trying to do her job, there was never any issue before.

[Oeditpus Rex]

18. You heard correctly

It'd be illegal for a California county to stop issuing marriage licenses, but they're under no legal obligation to perform civil ceremonies.

However, of course, there are also ethical obligations, and I find this quite unethical.