Bakersfield.com: Kern County news, events, classifieds, shopping, & search

RSS Feed   Print Story   E-mail Story        

Supervisors reject anti-gay marriage proposal

BY JAMES BURGER, Californian staff writer
e-mail:jburger@bakersfield.com | Tuesday, Jul 8 2008 11:28 AM

Last Updated: Tuesday, Jul 8 2008 1:47 PM

County supervisors rejected two gay marriage proposals Tuesday, one banning the unions in Kern, the other asking San Bernardino County to deputize people to perform civil ceremonies here.

County Counsel Bernard Barmann said the anti-gay marriage ordinance proposed by a conservative coalition would violate the California constitution.

Pastor and Kern High School District Trustee Chad Vegas said the sin of gay marriage is “self-evident” and supervisors should not be swayed by Barmann's opinion that their oath to uphold the state constitution required them to block the ordinance.

Vegas said in taking the same constitutional vow as a school board member, he did not promise to uphold the state’s top law if it violated his personal beliefs.

“I did not, in doing so, say I would violate the law of God,” Vegas said.

But supervisors voted unanimously to receive the ordinance and do nothing with it.

“What some are asking us to do today we are not able to do,” said Supervisor Mike Maggard. “We would lose (in court). The county’s coffers would be open. We would have to pay plaintiff’s fees.”

Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families, which drafted the ordinance, hoped passage in Kern would help an effort to pass a statewide gay marriage ban in November.

“...by passing the ordinance they will do more to pass the marriage amendment in November than anything else,” Thomasson is quoted as saying on WorldNetDaily.com. “This will be as inspirational as the Alamo, without the guns, knives, blood or death.”

The conservative United States Justice Foundation said in a legal briefing sent to The Californian by Thomasson that passing the ordinance would land Kern County in court.

And Kern County would lose, the legal brief states.

“...given the liberal agenda of the California State Supreme Court in this issue, and the resulting deferral of many judges to its will, it is likely that the injunction would be granted and attorney fees ordered against the County,” wrote lawyer Gary Kreep of the Ramona-based group.

Following the decision, Thomasson issued a press release saying if Kern County supervisors had been at the real Alamo, “they probably would have turned tail and ran.”

Barmann said in 2004, after passage of Proposition 22, San Francisco made the same move Thomasson is trying to get Kern County to make — knowingly violating a state law to make a political point.

“(San Francisco) attempted, illegally, to perform gay marriages,” Barmann said.

Thomasson sued Newsom on Feb. 13, 2004, after the mayor began issuing gay marriage licenses.

Thomasson said the two situations were "polar opposites" because Newsom's actions violated the gay marriage ban and the Supreme Court was wrong to overturn that ban.

Meanwhile, Supervisor Don Maben made a motion to pursue having San Bernardino County officials deputize Kern County employees to perform civil marriages.

But three of the four other supervisors refused to support him.

Maben compared Barnett's decision to end civil marriages in her office to the decision of school districts in the south in the 1950s to close their doors rather than teach a black child.

"You throw out everybody to shun a few. I believe it's morally wrong," Maben said.

Supervisor Michael Rubio expressed support for Maben's thoughts but, as chairman of the board, could not second his motion.

He said Barnett's decision was obviously made for personal, religious reasons, not the budget and safety issues as she claimed.

“To tell the people of Kern County I’m doing it because of budget issues, to say I’m doing it because of security issues,” is not right, Rubio said.

The move discriminated against low-income, minority families in his district who have trouble affording a traditional wedding ceremony, he said.

But Supervisors Maggard, Ray Watson and Jon McQuiston supported Barnett’s decision.

Maben let his motion die.

“I made my point, obviously there’s no stampede to make a second,” he said.

Maggard and McQuiston went as far as to chide County Administrative Officer Ron Errea for issuing a report that said the county does not lose $18,000 on civil marriages as Barnett has claimed but only $171.

Watson and Rubio, however, said they know civil marriage ceremonies are a break-even deal for the county.

And Watson said he believes Barnett ended civil marriage ceremonies because of her moral beliefs.

“I’ve never been under the illusion that it is a financial issue. I know that’s not (Barnett’s) impression on it,” Watson said. He said he has no problem with Barnett’s moral stand.