She said that no ceremonies will be performed there anymore, not for gay or straight couples. 

The courthouse isn't a very romantic place to get married anyway.  Getting married in a courthouse is like taking a bag lunch to work, and eating at your desk with someone you are romantically involved with. 

Actually, this is like having a co-worker that used to invite couples to bring bag lunches and sit down around her desk to eat them. 

Then, suddenly, when she realizes that too many couples are coming, her office is getting crowded, and she doesn't like the smell of of some lunches that folks are bringing in, she announces, "No more couples lunches at my desk." 

Suddenly, when couples find out they are no longer invited, they start thinking it was a gourmet restaurant, and they start to think they're missing out on something great. 

 Of course I beg to differ. Getting married in somebodies office is the very last thing I would want to do on my "special day". What I'm pointing out is that there are precious few people in the County of Kern who are legally able to officiate a marriage- ANY marriage. Those being court judges and justices of the peace. It's like being a notary public. You have to have a license to do that- not any ol' person can be a witness. What Ann has said she would not do is authorize any more people to officiate a wedding. What she's saying is if I go knocking doors and ask every judge in the county- and they all say no, I'm SOL. By closing the Cities doors (and claiming fiscal and safety reasons) she has, in fact, opened a whole new floodgate of discrimination.

It's not about getting married there. It's about getting married anywhere.

If her actions make it difficult for all couples to get married, heterosexual and homosexual couples, then how is that a matter of discrimination? 

Also, do you care whether the person that marries you believes in what they are doing or not?  If it were me, and someone secretly believed that marriage, all marriage, was a sin, I would not want that person in charge of my wedding ceremony.  I would be asking that person to do something that goes against his/her own conscience, whether or not I agreed with what that person's conscience was telling him/her. 

 Ann Barnett is an elected official of this county. Her job is to carry out the law as it is handed to her. I could care less if she believes in the Easter Bunny so long as she does the job as it is outlined for her.

You live a charmed life, dr. I don't know of any way I can adequately express to you the frustration of generations of the "invisible minority", much less my own. Your arguments really haven't illuminated anything that might be considered supportive so I have to wonder what your agenda is...

Though there is no hard evidence, and its not that important enough for me to do proper research, it is suspicious that she would enact this "safety" business shortly after this latest court decision.

Let's put this to rest. I have PERSONALLY worked with Ann, AND Sandy! She's not as you would consider her "homophobic, or hates gay people!  Yes it does come on the heels of the courts decision to allow gay marriage. BUT I think she realizes that there are going to be  a whooooole bunch of people wanting to get married  very quickly now. and to be honest her office is seriously not budgeted to deal with the huge influx.  I agree with blt  I've worked in the  CAO's building before. It doesn't reek romance.

I have mentioned someone that would LOVE to marry you, KINDRA KINDRA,.I think I said KINDRA. She is  also as you mentions something of a Notary as well.  I hope I've helped you with your problem. 

There are  counties one's up north that have taken this approach as Kern has of the no marriage policy and did it before the  court's decision on gay marriage. To call Ann the enemy is knee jerk and not  a kind thing.

 Yes it does come on the heels of the courts decision to allow gay marriage.

hmmmm... coincidence? I think not. The courts could use a little extra cash that comes from officiating weddings. Why turn down easy money? That seems a little odd to me. Maybe she didn't make her decision based on her gay discrimination though. Maybe she did it as a "safety issue" like Joe's trying to say. Who knows? All I know is that everyone is entitled to their opinions and no one really knows what discrimination feels like in your EVERY DAY life (not just sometimes..) Unless you live it.

Twinkie  they have like 3 people in that office. Not to mention that is not their only role, Ann cuts the employees checks among a quite a few other things. I don't think she said anything discriminating. do you think she would have a job tomorrow if she had? she's had that postilion for some time. She wouldn't do that, I think some people assume she is discriminating. If that's the case the Board of Supervisors are discriminators  too, yep all of them because she couldn't decide to  discontinue marriages GAY or STRAIGHT without the boards decision. Oh wait it's a big  plot to  upset gay people. No I think it was a case of they didn't want to be slammed by  a bunch of people gay straight or asexual people wanting to get married, yeah people that are asexual probably want to get married too ;)

On a side bar:  Discrimination is not fun I'll give you that Twinkie, but we ALL are discriminated against at some point because we all are human. It might even surprise you to know  you can even be discriminated against  by the same people you think are just exactly like yourself.

That's right, I would be honored to officiate (I am a legal, legit, ordained minister through the Universal Life Church homebased in Modesto, and have officiated many weddings in Kern County), so come a knock on my door!  And yep, I'm also a notary - if I was in LA county I'd be able to do a one stop shop and offer licenses too, but alas, I'm in Kern County.

I agree though, that she is an elected official and should uphold all laws regardless of her personal preferences.

When i read it in the newspaper this morning, I was thinking what a piece of sh*t! Im not gay and I dont care if gays marry but for this public official to openly express her anti-gay marriage stance before this court decision only to now all of a sudden say for budget and safety reasons, bullshit! And if it is true as Joe mentioned, perhaps the office cannot sustain an influx of people wanting to marry, then she should offer solutions and/or options. But for her to blatantly say nobody can marry now is dumb!

I noticed it said in the paper also that she tried to  ditch her county clerk job recently,  She's been trying to relieve herself from that duty since I left the county in 2006 when she was RE elected. I still saw no mention of her saying anything derogatory  or hate filled in the info I've gotten. She did get legal "protection" I Think I would too if I was gonna get the bum's rush of weddings and  was understaffed for them. Remember she  cancelled a few marriages that were straight too, just for the record.

Also she mentioned  election safety. You know a few years a go when the touch screen that the County invested in and it failed miserable and people were bitching about not being about to vote? That was all dumped into Ann's hands. The big wigs who ever that might have been, I guess the Board. Wanted the really cool groovy new technology! Well there was flaws in the system. Diebold didn't really tell  Ann's dept. too much about it. She was left holding the bag . then Assburn oops Ashburn got a call from some moron and they whined, ( I had to wait too long and this and that blah blah blah) Then he came and personally ass raped her and her dept.  So I think this time around? She wants to insure the integrity of  the elections. What would you be thinking?  It's easy to sit back and Monday morning quarterback this stuff, but you AND I don't have all the info.

 Your arguments really haven't illuminated anything that might be considered supportive so I have to wonder what your agenda is...

Being "supportive" doesn't mean you have to agree with the person or persons you support.

Furthermore, there is a tendency among, not only visitors and bloggers of this community, but everywhere, to judge others and the motives of others, and to never give a person we disagree with, the benefit of the doubt. 

We only look at what some sort of action appears to be on the outside.  We rush right in from there, where angels fear to tread, to make some sort of judgement about someone's motives, and we pretend we can read minds.

My "agenda," if you want to call it that, is to put out positive energy in the blogosphere, to encourage musical and artistic expression, and to urge people to refrain from hating on others based on limited information and stereotypes. 

 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH DRAMA, on both sides , both sides are throwing fits. I hate fits. The only thing is BAKERSFIELD VOTED AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE, there was a effing VOTE, A VOTE. DOESN'T ANYONE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS GOVERNMENT WILL DO WHATEVER THEY HELL THEY WANT TO DESPITE THE MAJORITY, AND SORRY MAJORITY WINS. NOT MINORITY.

THERE WAS A GLOBAL WARMING BILL REJECTED FROM REPUBLICAN CONGRESS 48-36 (I BELIEVE) AND FREAKIN WHINNY BABY BOXER CANT EXCEPT THAT AND SAYS "NO THE MAJORITY OF CONGRESS WANTS THIS PASSED" WELL IF THAT WAS THE CASE RETARD THEN THE MAJORITY WOULD HAVE PASSED IT. THEY CANT EXCEPT DEFEAT.

THESE FREAK JOBS IN GOVERNMENT CANT LET SHIT GO. NEITHER CAN THEIR SHEEP LIKE FOLLOWERS. ALSO, NANCY PELOSI IS A FREAK AND NEEDS TO ROT IN HELL, SHE STATED SHE WOULD (IF DEMOCRATS WON CONGRESS) LOWER THE GAS PRICES, HAS SHE no!!!! THEY LIE THEY STEAL AND THEY AREN'T WORTH A SHIT.

JUST USE YOUR HEAD PEOPLE, YOU ARE GETTING SCREWED OVER, AND SEEMS LIKE PEOPLE ARE OK WITH IT. WE ARE GOING TO VOTE SOON WHETHER OR NOT, MARRIAGE LICENSES ARE FOR MEN & WOMEN ONLY. SO, lets see what happens. MY prediction, Bakersfield will vote for Licenses between a man and women then government will say no,

 SO WHY EVEN ALLOW VOTING.

 happy voting suckers

That's why we love you, Annie.  You don't pull any punches, you are honest, and you are not afraid to speak your mind!  Best of all, you do it with your own distinct style, and you do it in a spirit of love, although I would call it "tough love." 

yes always with love..... =D II support YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE always, ALWAYS.  when the government says "NO even though you voted, we will make the choice" pisses me off. YOU CANT DO THAT!..

you cant. well looks like they are