10 responses

  1. MirrorMan
    June 6, 2008

    Oh, is she deep in it now! I can’t wait for the first slap!

  2. Jarred
    June 6, 2008

    According to the Departhment of Health Care Services in California, the following non-religious individuals are authorized to perform marriages:
    *A judge or retired judge, commissioner of civil marriages or retired commissioner of civil marriages, commissioner or retired commissioner, or assistant commissioner of a court of record in this state.
    *A judge or magistrate who has resigned from office.
    *Any of the following judges or magistrates of the United States.
    *A justice or retired justice of the United States Supreme Court.
    *A judge or retired judge of a court of appeals, a district court, or a court created by an act of Congress the judges of which are entitled to hold office during good behavior.
    *A judge or retired judge of a bankruptcy court or a tax court.
    *A United States magistrate or retired magistrate.
    *A legislator or constitutional officer of this state or a member of Congress who represents a district within this state, while that person holds office.

    So it sounds like there should be plenty of other options.

    Also, I don’t see why they couldn’t go to the County Clerk’s office in another county.

  3. tubesteak
    June 6, 2008

    Wow, this lady seems a tad obtuse! I just read a decent little thing about marriage proposals:

    http://decentcommunity.org/2008/05/28/the-most-decent-places-to-propose/

  4. KipEsquire
    June 6, 2008

    While I certainly commisserate with your indignation at this bigot’s motives, I simply do not see why the government should be expected to provide anyone with a wedding ceremony — any more than it should be expected to provide a bridal gown, tuxudo, wedding cake or honeymoon. License, yes; ceremony, no.

    So long as everyone is being treated equally, then let her stage her little stunt — all the better to mock her with.

  5. Jarred
    June 6, 2008

    While I certainly commisserate with your indignation at this bigot’s motives, I simply do not see why the government should be expected to provide anyone with a wedding ceremony — any more than it should be expected to provide a bridal gown, tuxudo, wedding cake or honeymoon.

    Kip, I think the important thing to keep in mind is that the government already stipulates who can officiate at a wedding. So yes, it is up to that government to make sure that provision is made for the non-religious to find someone who can officiate their non-religious ceremony. If the only authorized non-religious option was the county clerk’s office, I’d say this would be a big deal indeed. Effectively, it would be a way for the government to only allow for religious weddings.

    Fortunately, there are other options for obtaining a civil ceremony, so that’s not a problem.

  6. Stefano
    June 6, 2008

    Her position as Kern County Auditor-Controller-County Clerk is an elected position is it not?

    Does the Kern County government have impeachment abilities for her position?

    If so, due to the inconvenience she’s creating for all citizens of the county in addition to loss of county revenue in the tune of $50,000 annually +/- I wouldn’t be surprised if in the near future they attempt to remove her.

    One thing is probably certain, she won’t be re-elected if it is an elected position.

  7. cd
    June 7, 2008

    One thing is probably certain, she won’t be re-elected if it is an elected position.

    Hard to be sure of that. The region is about 70% Republican-voting, lots of fundies and reactionaries of all stripes. It’s a piece of Oklahoma stuck at the end of the Central Valley.

  8. Glenn I
    June 8, 2008

    In making her stand she will be disappointing more het couples than same-sex couples. I wonder how many of them will blame the gays and how many will more properly blame her for the disruption of their plans and the inconvenience imposed.

  9. Ephilei
    June 13, 2008

    Meh. Everyone will see how she will do whatever it takes to hurt gays and no one will be impressed.

    Score another point for the queer movement!

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop