Gay Couples To Get 'Certificates Of Inequality' (CA elected official to distribute documents)

WOODLAND, Calif. -- The woman who oversees civil marriage in Yolo County, Calif., is planning to issue "certificate of inequality" to same-sex couples on Valentine's Day.

It's her way of protesting California's ban on gay marriage. They will say, "I issue this Certificate of Inequality to you because your choice of marriage partner displeases some people whose displeasure is, apparently, more important than principles of equality." The Sacramento Bee reported that Yolo County Clerk-Recorder Freddie Oakley said she designed the certificates because she is tired of denying marriage licenses to gays and lesbians.

"We don't discriminate against people on the basis of age, or health, or disability, or race, or ethnicity, or religion, but we do on the basis of gender in this matter," she told the paper. "I feel it's inappropriate." Some critics told the Bee that it was wrong of Oakley, an elected official, to distribute her certificates from a public building.

"The people pay government officials to implement the law and to faithfully execute the law," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which lobbies on social issues. "Not to ridicule the law and perform stunts that advocate the overthrow of marriage." But Oakley told the paper that turning same-sex couples away without marriage licenses makes her feel "like a good German, in the Third Reich, who enforced bad laws." After the message on the certificate is Oakley's name, title and words of encouragement to same-sex couples: "May the God of your choice bless you."

"I issue this Certificate of Inequality to you because your choice of marriage partner displeases some people whose displeasure is, apparently, more important than principles of equality."

That's a pretty broad criteria this 'woman' has for marriage, none at all.

Yes, that appears to be part of the homosexual agenda...to remove any and all standards and definitions. Apparently they think that destroying the rest of Society is the only way that they can live a happy life.

What breathtaking selfishness.

all of this action using taxpayers money and government offices I suppose?

The article states that "she" is using Government offices and Government time to do this, and so I don't think that it's outlandish to assume that such an ignorant activist would shy away from using other Government supplies, equipment and facilities to produce these 'certificates' since "she" apparently believes that "her" opinion has more value than the Law.

The fact that someone like this has not been assassinated is voluminous proof of what an incredibly tolerant Nation we are. How long would somebody like this last if "she" were to try this in, say, Cuba?

The day after, she'll be handing out similar certificates to folks who believe they can make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

The mind reels at thoughts of what "she" might consider appropriate for humans vis-a-vis sows and other livestock...

((((shudder)))))

Oakley said she designed the certificates because she is tired of denying marriage licenses to gays and lesbians

Or because she's a publicity-hungry lesbian herself?

And one who has a visceral, seething hatred for the Society that handed her a high-paying job and a position of authority and trust.

California used to be a great state. It is continuing its high-speed, downhill plummet into irrelevance at a rate faster than anyone could have predicted. Of course, California's socialist fruits and nuts are providing a extra foot on the accelerator of California's demise.

Hopefully our Prayers for the well-being of our great Nation will give strength to the beleaguered sane majority there, so that they might reclaim the honor of their State.

Hypothetical question, Could the recipients of this document construe that these documents issued by a California Official from a California Government building be deemed as authoritative proof of discrimination against gays and lesbians? If so, I could imagine a lot of law suits.

shhh! You'll give ideas to the ACLU trolls and lurkers :-)

This is precisely why such activities as this have been historically verboten and elected officials have been expected to uphold the Law, ever since the invention of Law.

Oh well, the courts in California have plenty of time on their hands and don't have any other issues that are more relevant to the maintenance of the protection of the public I suppose (effort at sarcasm)

Should be called "Certificate of the Union of Fornication".

Agreed in principle, although I might suggest that this would insult fornicators.

All this is well beyond her public role, and if there was justice in this world, she would be publicly fired if she did what she says she's going to do.

As well as being required to repay every dime of salary that "she" has ever been paid by the State in "her" current position, as penance for this violence that "she" intends to inflict upon those who placed their trust in "her".

Why is she able to do this?

Because homosexuals have their own special set of rights, without the attendant responsibilities that the healthy members of the public have.

Any effort to apply basic legal standards to "her" behaviors will be met by thousands of bussed-in and well-compensated shrill homosexual marching activists who will anoint and deify "Freddie" as their latest cause celebre.

They will vandalize and burn the community to the ground unless any local officials who dared object recant their statements and make yet another exception in the Law..

It's her way of protesting California's ban on gay marriage. They will say, "I issue this Certificate of Inequality to you because your choice of marriage partner displeases some people whose displeasure is, apparently, more important than principles of equality."

Well then, I'd like to hand out "Certificates of Inequality of Opportunity" to inner-city kids condemned to bad schools because *some* people put the interests of teachers unions and bureaucracies ahead of the principle of equality of opportunity.

The only problem here is that you are using logic, reason, and solid, clear, rational thinking in an arena that involves the Left. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that in a historical context most all victories against the Left have involved vanquishing them with overwhelming military might.

(wishful thinking....."sigh")

Consider the problem this poses in the case of bisexuals. In order to "marry" both a man and a woman the trio will run into laws against bigamy. I think we've reached the point of reductio ad absurdam.

This Butch "official" needs to be booted out on her ample ass.

Agreed, and I'll wager that if we set up a lottery, the winner being able to boot "her" out using whatever level of force the winner deems appropriate, that we would have a run on tickets that would rival the eager Saddam hangman wannabees.

Givin the one eyed stare...........

Back in the '30s the Mayors of at least one and possibly more CA city sent their police to the CA state border and began forcibly turning back people from other US states trying to move to CA. (This is true BTW)

Call Marshall Dillion. Maybe its time to do that in reverse. We could seal the borders of CA and keep anyone from getting out.

Asking as many here have for the billionth time, what right are these people being denied? A man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man.

The right to formally marry their farm animals I do believe.

And if you argue that its not true that only gays are prevented from marrying beasts of burden then explain Bill Clinton's marriage to me ;-)

I hadn't heard about that before. That was in a different era, when concepts such as States' rights were in vogue and political correctness hadn't been invented yet. This was before the ACLU and other hysterical leftists and Commies masquerading as 'compassionate' people started strangling America to death.. "sigh"

Call Marshall Dillion. Maybe its time to do that in reverse. We could seal the borders of CA and keep anyone from getting out.

Sealing San Francisco would be a good first step. It could be done on the grounds of a public health quarantine.

I'm very happy that we have you as FR's Deputy Sherriff, Festus!

You, Marshall Dillon and a good posse could do far more for sealing America's borders than the Feds have been able to up to this point, I'll wager.

Back in the '30s the Mayors of at least one and possibly more CA city sent their police to the CA state border and began forcibly turning back people from other US states trying to move to CA. (This is true BTW)

I hadn't heard about that before. That was in a different era, when concepts such as States' rights were in vogue and political correctness hadn't been invented yet. This was before the ACLU and other hysterical leftists and Commies masquerading as 'compassionate' people started strangling America to death.. "sigh"

To the comments I made on the great depression. I dug out my book by T.H. Watkins ( not exactly a conservative author ) to find the bit about CA and the border.

When the dustbowl hit large numbers of american citizens began migrating to CA because it was more prosperous and also had a better welfare system. A lot of them headed to LA and it was the LAPD Chief, James E. Davis, who in Feb of '36 sent 125 LAPD members to the borders of AZ and OR to keep out the transients. This border area was 800 miles long give or take.

But I found another gem about how the LA, Chicago and Detroit cities were having large illegal immigration problems as well at the time. The feds solved it by starting large scale deportations. The reason was to save $$ on the state treasuries due to welfare and other relief work. The fact that they mostly all came back was laughed about in the day as giving them all a state paid vacation back home for the holidays. ;-) The first set shipped out in '31.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.