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
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.