RSS Feed
Print Story
E-mail Story
Sound off for June 22, 2008
| Saturday, Jun 21 2008 4:57 PM
Last Updated: Monday, Jun 23 2008 3:50 PM
Reader: Well, it seems County Clerk Ann Barnett has a friend in Californian columnist Marylee Shrider. They both seem to have a hatred for gays and the gay marriage issue.
Shrider wrote that "they of the slippery slope school are left to ponder the logic or lack thereof behind the courts ruling." Did she even read the ruling or was she only quoting the opinion of the Heritage Foundation? Everyone has their own opinion but some show such hatred it blinds their thought process.
But I think this open hatred will actually bring the gay community closer together and develop a stronger drive to keep the new law in place.
All gay/lesbian couples who plan to marry should invite Ann Barnett to their weddings and present her with a rainbow bouquet for coming.
-- Jim McCall
Jenner: Marylee Shrider doesn't hate gay people. But she also doesn't approve of gay marriage.
She responds:
"In my columns, I try to focus on the marriage aspect. I believe in traditional marriage -- with one man and one woman. People can read whatever they want to into that."
Shrider also confirms that she did indeed read the state Supreme Court ruling:
"The ruling is clear and to the point. In a 4-3 decision, the justices ruled that people have the right to marry whomever they like and that gender restrictions are unconstitutional. What important point did I miss?"
Also, she said the analysis of the ruling by the Heritage Foundation was not the only one she read, just the one she found most compelling.
Reader: Today (June 15) is Sunday and Father's Day.
I am curious as to which story in today's paper makes you the most proud? The one on the front page of the gay male couple, the story about the unknown person taking out recall papers on Ann Burnett or the story about the people signing the petition against Ken Weir?
Since today is Father's Day, I do not know if you are a parent, but if you are, how do you go about explaining to your children or grandchildren what the homosexual lifestyle is all about? How do you encourage them to live a normal lifestyle? Since it is the parent's job to discuss sex with our children at some point in time so that they do not make horrible mistakes and they are responsible in their private lives, how do you prepare them for the adult world? You also have to be careful to not make them cruel to those who live different lifestyles.
Today's paper did not make me feel good -- only sad that this fine city has to go through this.
-- Irene Edmonds
Jenner: The first story you mention was about how two gay men who have been a couple for 25 years were affected by the recent court decision that legalized same-sex marriages in California.
The second story you reference, which ran inside the Local section, was a straightforward story about a man who asked for and obtained a recall packet.
The third story dug into an assertion made by Ward 3 Councilman Ken Weir that environmentalists and city employees were behind an attempt to recall him.
Each of these stories was relevant, well-reported, thoughtful and fair.
You didn't ask me about the more than 26 other stories and columns in that edition written by our staffers. Or about the most unique and moving package in the paper -- the 58 essays and photos shared by local men and women about what their fathers mean to them.
I know the stories you mentioned dealt with topics you don't want to read about -- but these topics are important to our community and many readers.
It's easy these days to find a blog or a radio or television program that presents news only from a certain point of view, or that won't touch certain stories or topics. That's not what we're about.
I am a parent. My children are too young to understand some of the lifestyle issues that make the news these days, and I honestly can't tell you exactly how my wife and I will discuss all these things with them. But I can assure you that ignoring and avoiding discussion of these issues will not be an option we embrace.
Reader: In the wake of the recent California Supreme Court ruling legalizing homosexual marriages, Kern County Auditor-Controller Ann Barnett has been under fire for making a budgetary decision.
In this climate of economic uncertainty, I applaud her for exhibiting fiscal responsibility. After all, isn't that why the taxpayers of Kern County voted her into office?
Furthermore, I am under the opinion that all marriage ceremonies, conducted in any taxpayer-owned city or county office, whether it be between a man and woman or people of the same gender, is disruptive to the internal operations of that office.
It's my understanding that marriage licenses were issued Tuesday and that her office conducted themselves professionally and in accordance of the law. Unfortunately, The Californian has tried to paint a different picture.
Thank you Ann Barnett! Keep up the good work!
-- Tom B. Underhill
Jenner: Your accusation that we tried to "paint a different picture" about Barnett's office members conducting themselves professionally and in accordance with the law is absolutely not true.
I also can't buy your assertion that Barnett came under fire for making a budgetary decision.
Californian columnist Lois Henry questioned her about her plans to respond to the court's ruling. Henry and our editorial writers criticized her for being evasive and for seeking legal advice from advisers outside the county counsel's office.
Our reporter investigated the numbers behind her statement that her decision was driven by budgetary issues, but while she's disputed our math, she hasn't shared the details of her own math with us -- or with the public.
Reader: My complaint is about the comment in the paper on Sunday, June 15 regarding the TV guide saying that surveys showed that a small percentage of readers used it.
I want to just say please do not judge our intelligence like that. The majority of us out here were never asked our opinions. I have talked to hundreds of people out here and everyone of them are very passionate about how much they used the TV guide. Please don't test our intelligence by saying a small percentage of readers used it. You know, tell it like it is.
I understand that you're not going to put it in again and that's your prerogative but there are many, many of your readers out here who did use it and are very disappointed with The Californian because it hasn't been put back.
Just tell it like it is. Just tell us you can't afford to put the TV guide in, but don't say it's because the readers didn't want it because that's not true. You know that as well as all of us out here know it.
Thank you.
-- Lois McAdoo
Reader: I really don't expect to get a response. I'd like to address this to Mr. Jenner and also Mr. Mullen.
There was a note in last Sunday's paper about the TV guide again. It was expensive to produce and a small percentage of readers used it. That's not necessarily true.
I'm one of the senior citizens in this town who lives on a limited income, does not have access to other programming and I really depended on that TV guide. I'm sure I'm not the only one. There are a lot of us. I think we should be considered.
-- Ima Taylor
Jenner: You are not the only one.
We know the guide was very important to the readers who relied on it. But our Sunday paper reaches many, many thousands of people. And our research did indeed tell us that most readers didn't depend on it.
I'm sorry we couldn't continue to provide it.
Reader: (K)alifornia has finally gone way overboard and the ship is sinking. First, it was fish over man. Second, it was condors over man. Third, it was the spotted owl stopping the health of our forests. Now we have a travesty called "same-sex marriage." Who cares if Harry and Dick get married? I have never noticed The Californian getting excited over a "REAL" marriage. In fact, The Californian charges people who "really" get married a fee to have their picture in the paper.
It is time now (I guess) to stop getting married and just run down and get a test tube and be like the "gay community."
When will the insanity end?
-- John Keyes
Jenner: We do charge for wedding announcements. But we've also published many, many stories over the years about traditional families, couples and marriages.
Reader: How many days in a row has the front page of your pathetic sports section featured Kobe Bryant's picture? Most people know what he looks like now. Do the Lakers have any other players on their team? There must be some locals who are worthy of your attention. MLB coverage is a joke. Go Celtics!
A sports fan,
-- Ralph Krafve
Jenner: You should've waited to write till the championship series ended. It's hard to say we didn't give the Celtics their due, particularly in the way we displayed photos of the decisive games.
Reader: Today's paper (June 20) A1 headline (& text): "Woodland Hills hits 113 degrees." A5 story: "a record 109 at Woodland Hills."
So which was it? Or are there two different Woodland Hills being referenced?
Your friend,
-- Liz Keogh
Jenner: The Page One item should've reflected the numbers contained in the story -- 109 degrees, in other words. I have no explanation for the discrepancy. We'll try to be more careful.
Reader: This concerns Friday's editorial, "Who's playing 'political games?' I would like to discuss the pejorative use of the term "extortion" and other examples cited of supposed "Republican" misuse of their power as the "loyal minority" regarding passage of the state budget.
Would The Californian editorial page be so quick to yell "foul" if the Republicans controlled the state Legislature? If the Democrats were the "loyal minority" extracting concessions from the hypothetical Republican-controlled budget process, The Californian would whistle a different tune joined by Grumpy of the Seven Dwarfs. The Californian would then applaud the "masterful political power play" by the Democrats!
No, The Californian can NOT have it, as they seem to want it, both ways. It is the political process. No, there shall not be any steamrolling allowed, nor will the Republicans play dead.
As another example, there are many reasons it takes a 2/3 vote according to our national Constitution to: Override vetoes, expel a member of either House, convict of Impeachment, ratify treaties, and pass proposed Amendments through both houses of Congress, etc. It is our Republic.
-- Larry Vernon Hallum
Editorial Page Editor Dianne Hardisty responds: You betcha we would object to these games -- no matter who is in charge. If the Republicans controlled the Legislature and the Democrats blocked the budget to extort support for unrelated legislation, we would howl our heads off.
Hello, we have a BUDGET CRISIS. Every day the state has to borrow money to make ends meet puts taxpayers further in debt. Nothing is more important than forging a fair and balanced state budget.
Reader: I wonder why media people are so annoying? Why do they follow up on stories that are not a huge deal?
While I think that it is wrong for an elected official to press her personal beliefs on her constituents by not performing civil marriages and then not making a statement about the real reason for it, is very wrong. Gays have their glory; they march in gay pride, which is ridiculous to flaunt your homosexualness like it is something to be proud of.
I believe that you are who you are so why do you feel the need to press it on everyone.
I think there is other news we need to follow up on. Instead we get news people who are rude and have no respect for others. I used to work at a local hospital where reporters would show up with their pen and paper and start questioning family of people who had just died. Reporters just pop in and ask questions without any heart. They mob everyone who will say something.
Take a hint when someone says that they don't want to talk to you. Give him or her some space, have some heart, and stop using the First Amendment when asked to leave.
For the most part, the media SUCKS at respecting people's boundaries.
-- Marshall Smith-Bakersfield
Security Attendant
Kern County Government Center
Jenner: I can't speak for "the media," only the behavior of the staff of The Californian.
I can tell you that we don't tolerate reporters who have no regard for the rights of ordinary people who don't want to speak to us.
Our staffers go to great lengths to respect the rights and feelings of people, especially those who are cruelly thrust into the spotlight by fate or circumstance. Our reporters are very compassionate and display great sensitivity when dealing with people caught up by tragedy or events outside their control.
At the same time, these same staffers can be quite tenacious when trying to get answers from public officials and public figures responsible for decisions and actions affecting the public and our readers.
We also can be tenacious when we're denied access to things that are public -- whether that's public information found in documents, or access to public areas in county-owned and taxpayer-built facilities.