Posted on 06/05/2008 9:21:12 PM PDT by umgud
Kern County Auditor-Controller-County Clerk Ann Barnett repeatedly tried to avoid licensing and performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, interviews and e-mails obtained by The Californian show.
At her request, County Counsel Bernard Barmann filed a brief with the California Supreme Court opposing implementation of the May 15 ruling allowing gay marriage.
She tried to resign her elected position as county clerk — while keeping her positions as auditor-controller and elections boss. “She really wanted to get rid of it,” Barmann said.
And finally, when the ruling came down Wednesday that she had to license same-sex marriages, she decided to stop performing all weddings. That involved canceling 25 heterosexual ceremonies that had been scheduled after June 13, according to her staff.
To read more of this story, click on the headline above.
(Excerpt) Read more at bakersfield.com ...
bump
Good for her.
The first of many casualties due to this nonsense...
Ditto.
She sounds like someone who we will hear about in the future. With courage like hers, she can go all the way to the top in politics.
Skin color is not an abomination to the Lord; homosexuality is.
Under the current climate I wouldn't bet on that.
She probably wasn't alive in 1948.
But if she is making her choices wisely - based on God's Word - the answer is easy to infer:
Marriage between individuals of the same sex is an abomination before God.
The 1948 case was a marriage between a man and a woman. This is not an abomination.
I hope this was of help.
Maybe I miss-understood your stance. Regardless, then I would ask the same question to the judge.
Whether you look at it religiously or secularly, marriage between persons of the same sex is just an abomination.
Miscegenation laws and homosexual marriage are two different totally different things.
Perez and Sharp? Why don't you just call her a racist bigot, eh? Typical liberal BS, and an insult to equate behavior with race...I didn't know that FReepers drank that coolaid.
Real bigotry is found in those, evidently like yourself, who equate an immoral, disgusting lifestyle, with an unchangeable thing like race.
African Americans and other real minorities--who suffered so much REAL persecution, hardship and struggle for freedom--in contrast to the self-made, self-loathing psychological "hardships" of the effeminate class, should be the first to shout-out objection to the lying characterization of bigotry for those who still disapprove immoral sexual perversion.
Let the perverts go back to their holes and quit forcing, in the name of "tolerance" and "respect" their immorality on the rest of society.
It's not bigotry to subscribe to sexual ethics; it's godliness, and basic sanity.
Framing homosexual marriage as wrong because it is an abomination to God doesn’t mean much to many people because they are Godless.
Conservatives need to frame their resistance to homosexual marriage in other terms.
Like- homosexual marriage would redefine marriage for the first time in history- that redefinition would mean that marriage could be between any parties- 2 men and 1 woman or vice-versa (polyamory), polygamy, etc., as well as marriage between parents and their adult children, marriage between siblings, etc.
It is best for children to be raised by a mother and father. Allowing homosexual marriage means that society has lowered the standards for children and would devalue them It is in society’s best interest to promote the best possible family unit for our posterity.
What does the Bible say?
The Lord God gave away the first bride:
Genesis 2:22-24 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
One man, one woman, one flesh.
There are no mention of 'races' in the Bible, because there are no such thing - we are all cousins.
The marriage between tribes, to which you make allusion, I presume is a reference to the edicts to the Hebrews to not marry non-Hebrews. This was a unique rule given to the Hebrews because they were a unique people. They were to be different, and to be 'walled off' from the rest of the world as custodians/oracles of the Word of God. God's special people. This is the way it was supposed to be until God's time that HE would bring HIS Son, and then send the Word throughout the world. So your allusion was to a unique people (the Hebrews), and over a unique time period (Moses to Christ). Given the exceptions to the rule (Salmon marrying Rachab of Jericho; Boaz marrying Ruth the Moabitess; Solomon - various; etc), I'm not exactly sure what to make about the rigor of this edict - but your point is valid with respect to the specific Hebrew 'tribe' in this specific time period. Not relevant to 1948 Perez vs. Sharpe.
“Miscegenation laws and homosexual marriage are two different totally different things.”
“Not according to the California Supreme Court.”
Maybe the 9th Circus will get it right.
hahahahahahahahaha
Your point is legitimate.
Nonetheless, I'll continue to oppose the Godless slide in our Country, and frame the argument in that manner. I don't want our endpoint destination to be Western Europe. They started their descent into Godlessness 100+ years ago. God turned them over to their blindness, and they became susceptible to the lies of an Adolf Hitler, and are now awaiting dhimmi-hood...(I hope I'm wrong - but it looks like they are headed that way).
Conservatives need to frame their resistance to homosexual marriage in other terms.
I agree with your premise.
I frame it so even the dumbest socialist could understand.
The State is not in the business of love.
The State recognizes marriage between and man and a women because that is the only way the State can assure it's continuance, that is through propagation and a stable platform to raise children.
Homosexual relations provide no continuance of the State. Therefore there is no benefit to the State to encourage or reward homosexual relations.
In a sane world even a Bolshevik should understand.
I think you buddies at DU miss you.
At least that’s the argument so many used to deny different races the right to marry one another in this country for a very long time.
Yep, and people have defended and promulgated all sorts of destructive things in the name of religion--however, its quite a logical leap to imply therefore ALL religious arguments (and therefore all religious ethics?) as a crock, and worthless in the public square. The civil rights movement itself, going back to the abolitionist movement before Lincoln--were openly Christian values movements, and their leaders were primarily men and women of faith.
The foundation of ethics for the great majority of Americans of faith is the bible. One cannot find one word of justification to call miscegenation "an abomination" in scripture--those who claimed that years ago were talking in their hats--which is why that idea was abandoned more than a generation ago, by the vast majority of Christians.
Scripture does have a LOT to say though about right and wrong in sexual ethics however--and even down to the scholarly level--despite lame and ignorant arguments to the contrary--it is unambiguous in condemning homosexual behavior--as an equal perversion to incest and bestiality--in both Old and New Testaments: Sexual ethics were after all one issue that before the 1960s ALL Christian denominations agreed about...for millennia. More than that all major religions, not just the Judeo-Christian ones, not being naive, condemned homosexual behavior--until the baby boomers got horny.
Just because people used a false bad argument--calling it religious--in the past for racist purposes, does not make ancient sexual religious morals the same thing, and suspect to being labeled bigotry.
Juvenal, Satire II
God is watching.
Yes, along with the right of normal men and women to be officially called by the State "husband" and "wife", "bride" and "groom."
He who controls the language, controls the culture.
Is this your cute way of calling me a hypocrite?
First, proof of fertility is not a requirement for marriage. Second, the 20th century brought us artificial insemination (including lesbians giving birth) and later adoptions by homosexual couples. These REALITIES shred apart your argument.
The SECULAR STATE recognizes marriage so there's a legal relationship with regards to rights, responsibilities and inheritance.
Last night I was thinking back to a family story that a set of my grandparents could not marry in their state because my grandfather was divorced. They married in a neighboring state instead and that marriage was recognized in their home state despite it being at odds with the rules in place for unions within it at the time. I believe this was in the 1920's.
My ONLY concern is whether courts will decide legal marriages cannot be presided over by religious who refuse to perform homosexual weddings. I don't know the body of law behind the "extra" rules a church may have about use of its facilities such as pre-marital counseling sessions with the minister.
I don't care what pair gets married so long as they do so of their own free will.
The new licenses simply say “Party A” and “Party B” in a very clinical, legalistic fashion.
equating homo-marriage with interracial marriage is one of the oldest social engineering canards we see around here
i fear your stay amongst clarity and sanity will be brief
And finally, when the ruling came down Wednesday that she had to license same-sex marriages, she decided to stop performing all weddings. That involved canceling 25 heterosexual ceremonies that had been scheduled after June 13
I just thought of this myself yesterday. Of course no religious cleric can possibly be forced to perform a same sex marriage. But now all judges and justices of the peace CAN be forced. I can imagine a lot of older people in the smaller counties will be quitting their positions.
There’s going to be a whole lot of forcing going on.
Forcing wedding photographers to take photos of the lez wedding or face a lawsuit.
Forcing a church to rent the sanctuary to a homo wedding or face a lawsuit.
Forcing a floral business to do the flowers for a gay wedding or face a lawsuit.
Facing a cake decorator to bid on the cake or face a lawsuit.
Forcing a band to play at a gay wedding reception or face a lawsuit.
Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, unless you are blind to the reality of the implications of this change. You can't get more explicit and "clinical" than using the well-understood, time-honored terminology of "bride" and "groom" as the union of one man and one woman.
"Parties?" Can't this also mean plural marriages? Marriages between whatever and whatever? What a PC load of crap. You entirely miss the point that the homo-activist have succeeded, at least for now, in denying the natural, traditional legal titles to the parties of a marriage. Or maybe you don't.
Hold your breath until I care what the California Supreme Court thinks...
It is nice she stood up for what is right. Far too many bureaucrats are gutless spineless things much like Mitt Romney was in Massachusetts when he ordered clerks to issue marriage licenses.
Gee, I guess “Party A” could equally well be “Hold My Pickle Holding Company, LLC”
And “Party B” could be “Redwood Round Receiving, Inc.”
Look, a new venue for “Corporate Mergers”!
I have made a personal vow to never be so desperate for money that I would take a job working for whichever piece of filth is elected Mayor.
> Marriages between different tribes was also once
> considered an abomination before “God.”
Not in the Bible.
Moses was married to a Chushite (Black), and Solomon was married to an Ethiopian.
You can read about Moses’ family’s reaction to his Cushite wife in Numbers chapter 12. They were very unhappy with his choice, but God had another perspective.
Read for yourselves.
However, the Bible says that it is an abomination for men to lust after men and for women to lust after women. You can read about that in the New Testament in Romans 1, as well as in Leviticus and Deuteronomy in the Old Testament.
If she is doing it out of religious conviction and NOT bigotry, she would not.
Perez was argued on the basis of Andrea Perez's convictions as a Roman Catholic. Miss Perez was a Mexican-American woman considered "white" because she was not "Malay," "Mongolian," "mulatto," or "black," as was her fiance, Sylvester Davis. She said her church didn't say she couldn't marry a black man, and if the State of California did, it was a violation of her First Amendment rights.
Mrs. Davis died in 2000. If she was a devout Catholic until death, we know what she would have thought about her case opening the door for homomarriage.
And another thing: Unlike "mixed" marriages, there is NO instance in the scriptures of the OT or NT that make any reference to a homosexual union of any two persons in approving terms. None whatsoever.
If the past is any indication of what may come, there may be sanctions against denominations that refuse to place homo and traditional marriage on an equal plane. But they will NEVER be able to legislate changing the Bible.
Well...if they do...in the words of Charlton Heston: "From my cold, dead hands!"
So. A 4-3 “ruling” by one of the most liberal, if not THE most liberal courts in America makes homosexual marriage “okay” to you?
If, by fiat, that same court decided that it is fine for your tax dollars to be used for euthanasia, then that would be “okay” with you?
Please explain how opposition to homosexual marriage is analogous to racism.
Somehow, I think that your entreaty to calnative to check the Bible is akin to asking the California or Massachusetts legislatures to respect the will of the people.
It shows that even misguided dimwits can use a computer to search the Internet for something they think is relative.
Does the Bible mention anything regarding marriage and race?
Well, then, I guess we just have to take it when 4 out of 7 black robed philosopher kings say that thousands of years of history, culture, and nature are wrong, and they, in their infinite wisdom, are wiser than anyone that has ever lived, and wiser than the Creator.
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.