Perennial War Warps Our Country.

I know its a shocking concept but our country has "been at war with terror" since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Been at war is in quotes if only because the type of war the US has engaged in is not at all the traditional idea of war. The home front has remained mostly in a state of normality. Certainly there have been some changes like the security theater employed at airports but for the most part Americans go through their every day lives without feeling the war or seeing it on tv. Yet our country is straining to accommodate both of these attitudes. How do we reconcile American values with perennial war?

Republicans in our country live in Hobbes' state of nature. They cower in fear demanding an absolute security that can never be achieved. That fear has lead us to lock up some people accused of terror related activities around the world. We lock them in dark forbidding places afraid that they might get out again under any conditions. We have done this in contradiction with the American system of justice. Thus we face dilemmas like this one.

An appeals court expressed uneasiness Thursday with the ramifications of allowing some detainees at a U.S. military prison in Afghanistan to challenge their imprisonment in federal court.

The three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voiced their apprehension during oral arguments in the government's appeal of a lower court ruling that granted three detainees at Bagram Air Base the right to contest their confinement under habeas corpus, a centuries-old legal doctrine. The judges seemed concerned that upholding the decision might extend such rights to other detainees abroad.

The Justice Department has argued that U.S. District Judge John D. Bates erred in granting the three detainees, two Yemenis and a Tunisian, the right to contest their confinements in federal court. The detainees claim that they were captured outside Afghanistan and brought to the U.S. prison at Bagram Air Base, northeast of the capital of Kabul. They have been held for at least six years, their attorneys say.

The entire idea surrounding the concept of enemy combatants is that the united States may be in a war where we dont have the time or the resources to transport, collect evidence or to pursue the traditional methods of justice. Its a protection that in case we captured someone on the battle field we could hold them until we could try them. The argument and the foundation for it takes on a new light when we understand that the United States is always at war.

The adventure in Afghanistan may come to an end in a few years or it may not. If we are dedicated to building a liberal democracy there then it must certainly go on for another decade. In any case the time when trying the people at Bagram will pose no inconvenience and will be easy will never come. The alleged diplomatic issues will always exist. The nature of the conflict and the attitude we have taken ensure that there will always be reasons not to try these people if we allow it. It is easier to let them rot where they are. out of sight out of mind.

In many ways the reticence of the court should bring apprehension for people who value civil liberties. The judicial branch, even with a right leaning Court, seems like the last best hope. The last bulwark against the rising tide of neocon national security. The legislative and executive branches have decided its better to go with the flow than fight the tide. Obama's civil liberties credentials were not particularly string after the Fisa flop but there was hope based on his rhetoric that real positive action might be coming from his administration. One year in its not looking good as Adam Serwer writes in a tapped article Has Obama Abandoned The Obama Doctrine?,

This is irreconcilable with an administration that has pursued indefinite detention, a two-tiered legal system for trying suspected terrorists, and now an ethnic profiling system for Muslim travelers that will do little more than strengthen al-Qaeda's narrative of a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, and alienate Muslims the president claims he wants to "engage on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect." His administration, while outlawing torture, is studiously protecting its legal architecture, so that it might rise like a corpse in a George Romero film the next time the GOP takes the White House. What are these, if not policy positions driven entirely by the kind of fear the Obama Doctrine was created to disperse?

The president has not abandoned the high-minded rhetoric of the Obama Doctrine. But he has abandoned virtually all the substantive policy positions it was created to defend, leaving the administration with a shrinking patch of ground perpetually under siege from Republicans who want to turn the United States into a country that tortures people suspected of crimes and denies them any semblance of due process. It's impossible for me to see how the president isn't on the verge of squandering the "new beginning" with Muslims communities he claims is vital to preserving American security.

All of these actions regarding national security and our justice system are warping our country towards the bunker security state. There is a line in Hunt for Red October where the two defecting Russians talk about how in America they let you go from state to state with no papers. Our liberties and freedoms are at the core of America. The longer we try and maintain war as normal life the worse off our country will be. I believe that the Appeals Court should grant the habeas right as a step toward reconciling with our tradition of justice and as a step away from the perennial state of war.

We cannot continue to make the normal life one with the mindset of war.

Read more...

Obama Coming Up Short on Civil Liberties

Is he delivering or not? That seems to be a dividing line right now among democrats and liberals. Is President Obama delivering on the change promised during the campaign? The answer to that depends in part on what you thought he meant by change. Other contributing factors to your view probably include the time frame he has had to operate in, the conditions of the media, the general lameness of the senate, and your own level of idealism versus pragmatism. For instance, i am not going to be satisfied with the end result of HCR, im not going to get the same choice members of congress get. democrats should stop saying that i will. Of course i really didnt have expectations that i would so i dont take that too hard. Civil Liberties on the other hand, i was really expecting better.

A diary currently on the rec list includes this,

President Obama's second core campaign promise was to make government more transparent and accountable, to rebuild a sacred trust that had been seriously eroded. And he has delivered. He closed the revolving door, forbidding anyone who works in his administration from lobbying when they leave their jobs. For the first time in history, names of visitors to the White House will be released, so every American can see which interests and individuals are visiting their government. And the groundbreaking website recovery.gov is allowing Americans to trace every dollar spent and every job created or saved from the recovery act, adding a level of transparency never before seen.

I think that this overstates the magnitude of the actions. I am however willing to grant that he has done some things to increase transparency in some areas. However our capital is generally the color of tar on a whole host of issues including the tarp money and many of the fed's practices. Let's not pretend that everything in washington is exposed to sunlight at this point. Lobbying still exists. Shady back room deals still happen. Beyond this stuff though i feel like part of this campaign promise of openness and sunlight was a reformed legal policy dealing with civil liberties.

There are several key aspects of civil liberties policy that i understood from candidate obama were going to be addressed. I dont think they are disputable. The first is the closure of Gitmo. Next is the end of the military commissions for trying terror suspects. Finally, the end of the extreme use of the state secrets privilege to toss out uncomfortable lawsuits that resulted from Bush Era abuses.

None of those things are happening nor do they look to happening any time soon. There seems to be some movement on DADT which is a policy that candidate Obama was in favor of repealing. It gets talked about without any action. The repeal of that program would most likely buy Obama more credit with those critical of him. Part of the problem is that he really doesnt have a great starting deposit. Almost immediately, he started off badly with the state secrets issue and the military commissions.

In early February, he had an opportunity to back up campaign rhetoric and make a break with Bush on state secrets.

Obama Administration Maintains Bush Position on 'Extraordinary Rendition' Lawsuit

The Obama Administration today announced that it would keep the same position as the Bush Administration in the lawsuit Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.

A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn't changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret.

This is not going to please civil libertarians and human rights activists who had hoped the Obama administration would allow the lawsuit to proceed.

It hasnt improved with time either,

Attorney General Eric Holder says a lawsuit in San Francisco over warrantless wiretapping threatens to expose ongoing intelligence work and must be thrown out.

In making the argument, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently. A civil liberties group criticized the move Friday as a retreat from promises President Barack Obama made as a candidate.

Holder's effort to stop the lawsuit marks the first time the administration has tried to invoke the state secrets privilege under a new policy it launched last month designed to make such a legal argument more difficult.

In addition the administration took a hard line on the media shield law demanding that the national security arguments be removed from the balancing test used to determine if compulsion of sources is required.

President Obama has also declined to eliminate the military commission as an available forum for the trial of accused terror suspects.

Looking at the steps he has taken, the tinkering made, and the lack of action im not happy. I dont think president Obama is doing a good job here and i do not believe he is delivering on the change he offered in the campaign. I understand he has only had nine months but these are actions taken in the wrong direction not simple inaction. There is no argument that the President has lacked opportunity he has simply not delivered.

Read more...

Obama's Double Secret State Secrets Strategy

Everyone is probably aware by now that the government is advancing some pretty far reaching state secret claims. Everyone is probably also aware that this violates the spirit of campaign promises regarding habeas rights. I want to explore the double secret strategies that Obama may or may not be employing in order to secretly assure that Presidential power is restricted and detainees do get habeas rights even though he appears to be doing the exact opposite.

Secret Theory One--Making Congress Do It

Ok it is congress' job to define what are and are not state secrets as far as statutory direction for the courts. This theory states that by advancing theories that are so egregious in their attempts to grab power that it will force congress to act. The people will rise up and hold tea parties against Obama's behavior and force action on the hand of congress. Obama will play the villain to give the democrats in congress the victory of rolling back executive power grabbed under Bush. Obama's refusal to say whether he supports the state secrets act is simply a way to keep the topic in the headlines. By drawing additional press it increases the visibility of the issue and the chances that Congress will act on the issue.

Secret Theory Two--Making the Judiciary Do It

By advancing these claims in the judiciary Obama provides the opportunity for test cases that may establish precedent that rejects the claims that the governments lawyers are making. By doing this in the courts Obama is effectively backdooring law because congress is unreliable. If the courts reject these arguments then future presidents will have little chance of making them stick because of the doctrine of stare decisis.

The state secrets doctrine is a judicial doctrine to begin with so maybe it makes sense to have Obama set up test cases for its reformation there instead of trying to get by the republican's in congress. By playing this out in the courts Obama and the democrats avoid dealing with the consequences of limiting what is and is not secret. This potentially avoids charges that Obama and the Dems are soft on terrorists as the rabid right already hates activist courts. Who are the courts after all to say what should and should not be secret? they lack the competency to make those types of decisions. Obama is simply playing the power grabber so that the courts reject his argument...its brilliant.

Secret Theory Three--He has to do it.

Obama doesnt actually want the power. Its just the job of the lawyers to make these arguments on behalf of their clients. Its their job to advance all possible defenses to these cases instead of admitting that the government spied on these people and owes them damages. Lawyers of course dont have to believe that this is actually the law to make these arguments. There is no ethical problem or penalty for misstating or exaggerating what a case says.

whats your theory?

Seriously though if you read the brief filed by the government it makes a largely procedural and practical argument that it is simply to hard at this time to conduct the type of operations needed to determine if the people held there deserve to be held there. Essentially it stats that because there are ongoing combat operations in that theater these people should be held until such time as the war is over.

The United States and its allies have a “clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.” Id. The Court’s ruling, however, likely would divert the military from this critical mission.

its not a compelling argument.

Read more...

Just Say No to Benevolent Dictators

Seeing venezuala repeal their term limits on the office of the presidency has brought to mind something about executive power in our own country. This is the "trust me" idea. The idea that as citizens what we need is to trust our presidents to use their expansive power wisely and that by simply highlighting past abuses or saying that they wont happen again. I feel that simply airing dirty laundry from the Bush administration or discovering the truth is not enough to prevent future abuses by the executive. In this light i would like to see President Obama and the Congress take more concrete steps to prevent a repeat of the Bush administration in the future and to roll back the executive branch's power.

Dave Waldmen presented a question about Obama and the use of signing statements to avoid having to enforce the executive pay measures passed in the stimulus bill.

Whatever the differences, let's be clear about what it means that Congress has passed this set of restrictions, and President Obama is signing them into law tomorrow. Any changes he'd like to see made, he ought to seek to have made legislatively. After two weeks of seeing the stimulus bill watered down and slashed in a futile attempt to "reach out" to Republicans who all eventually gave him the finger, do you think we could maybe, possibly not have the President unilaterally take an axe to a wildly popular provision added to the package by members of his own party?

I'm not a presidential adviser, of course. But I'm thinking that maybe this ought to be approached with a bit more caution, and more signals need to be sent that the President is committed to making any fixes he wants through the legislative process. Any ambiguity isn't likely to help him when it comes time to sell another $2 trillion round of TARP funding in the coming weeks. The constant worry of Obama's most critical allies on the Hill with respect to the TARP is that Congressional oversight not fall by the wayside. If the White House's opening move on oversight is to announce its intention not only to make decisions unilaterally, but to brush aside enacted statute in doing so, we're going to be in for a bumpy ride.

I view presidential signing statements as unconstitutional. To me the represent the executive making a determination about what is and is not constitutional that is reserved for the courts. The presidents job is to faithfully execute the laws not to alter clear language and modify statutes for political purposes. If Obama where to make a signing statement that established his intent not to enforce the executive pay cap that would be an unconstitutional act. He would be making law, not enforcing it. When an executive simply rewrites the laws passed by a duly elected legislature he takes on the character of a dictator.

Similarly, when the executive branch labels a topic protected by national security and orders law suits thrown out they are acting in a dictatorial manner. The executive should not be able to simply throw out law suits based on alleged national security requirements without a review by the judiciary as the legitimacy of that assertion. Congress should pass legislation to end the governments assertion of such a broad state secrets provision.

These are just two of the most obvious examples of how a president acts in an undemocratic and dictatorial manner. It is now, when we have Obama as President that we need congress to step to the plate and firmly roll back, in law, the unitary executive style expansion of power that has been happening since Reagen. Congress during the Bush years managed to let the executive branch have whatever it wanted because Bush was Keeping us safe. This exact language is the language of subjects not citizens. The President is not a paternalistic figure who takes care of all our problems, Presidents are supposed to be leaders. Leaders are not empowered to simply do whatever they think is best, especially under our constitution. Presidents, even the good ones are not all powerful.

While i believe Obama is of sound moral and ethical character we are a nation of laws and not of men. As a country we cannot simply sit back passively as our elected leaders "do whats good for us". We need laws, accountability, and checks on a leader be it Obama or any one else. I do not want a benevolent despot who leads me like a sheep where he says is best, otherwise id be a conservative. We shouldn't need to trust our leaders not to torture or spy on us. Just say no to benevolent dictators.

Read more...

Poetic Justice for the Mob

For those that tend to support the authorities over civil liberties the most common argument is that, "i am not special i have nothing to hide". Most people think this is true. Then you happen to come into a situation where you do something stupid, maybe even trivial. Its not a big deal, not even a "real" crime in the sense that society attaches moral blame. Now however, the government finds you and you get sent to prison.

The impetus for this post is that the secret service is investigating the "kill him" shout that was reported by Dana Millbank in the pages of the wapo. I can guarantee that the people in the palin rally would support the governments surveillance and police powers to catch terrorists. i bet the person who made that comment would too. Yet the secret service, if it really wanted to, could use those powers to hunt down that person right now. That person is a domestic terrorist and would be accorded zero rights. They could be sent right off to gitmo if a future president obama wanted to.

Do you think that all those people at that palin rally worked into a frenzy by her vile rhetoric should end up in prison for those threats? Should we follow palin and mccain across the country and simply jail everyone who makes comments like that? the secret service could and they could go about it however they wanted. Those palinites would probably say they did not mean it or that they were sorry but that would be no excuse. how does 5 years in prison sound? I doubt those palin supporters would be such big fans of the police state after that.

Read more...

Bush Seeks to Affirm Permanent Influence

As his time in office winds down Bush wishes to put his stamp on the government, permanently. Pending that he wants to make it as hard as he can for a possible Obama administration to undue the policies and practices of his administration. He wants to ensure that even has failed conservative policies fail at the ballot box they continue in government through his appointments and changes in the law. One of the more controversial changes Bush has made is his expansion of Presidential power. A key to this expansion was his use of war time powers. It is this war time power that is the subject of his latest attempt to scar our country for generations in his name.

One of the important techniques Bush has used in securing his power and changes in government is making congress complicit in his acts. He is up to his old tricks again as outlined by the NYT piece Bush Seeks to Affirm a Continuing War on Terror . The focus of the piece is Bush's attempt to have congress issue a statement renewing a declaration of war with the Taliban and Al-Queda,

“acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans.”

The language is included in a proposal for hearing legal appeals from detainees at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay and is just one in a number of recent attempts to codify Bush policies in law. The goal is to make sure that the next president has the same expanded powers of detention, interrogation and surveillance. It is a power grab at the expense of the legislative branch. If Congress capitulates on this it will mark simply another instance of their complicity in the Bush abuse of power.

Recently the Bush administration rewrote the rules governing spying by U.S. intelligence agencies, both in the United States and abroad. None can forget the recent FISA rewrite. In addition, Bush has been placing judges on US federal benches that comply with his ideology. The same goes for the different US bureaucracies including the epa where Bush has made sure that nothing is done to protect the environment and the FBI where he signed off on torture.

The implications of his actions are many. Already i have briefly discussed the fact that his changes will leave a lasting impact on the US policy and law. The attempt to get a renewed war powers statement is also a way to bring back some sense of fear in the populace.

Mr. Bush “is trying to stir up again the politics of fear by reminding people of something they haven’t really forgotten: that we are engaged in serious armed conflict with Al Qaeda,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a constitutional scholar at Harvard and legal adviser to Mr. Obama. “But the question is, Where is that conflict to be waged, and by what means.”

The war on terror is a war like the war on drugs. It is not a real war. It is essentially a police action and should have been fought as one. When the Rand Corp study on the subject came out at the end of July it only confirmed what others have been saying for years our actions are not working and only strengthening the criminals.

The authors call for a strategy that includes a greater reliance on law enforcement and intelligence agencies in disrupting the group's networks and in arresting its leaders. They say that when military forces are needed, the emphasis should be on local troops, which understand the terrain and culture and tend to have greater legitimacy.

In Muslim countries in particular, there should be a "light U.S. military footprint or none at all," the report contends.

"The U.S. military can play a critical role in building indigenous capacity," it said, "but should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment."

Instead of heading the calls of experts the Bush administration is seeking to make sure its crimes and practices become the law of the land. They want to ensure that we continue to use the phrase "enemy combatants". They want to hold the future people America to their odious ideas about how to protect this country, throwing people into a prison camp without legal recourse.

The administration wants Congress to set out a narrow framework for those prisoner appeals. But the administration’s six-point proposal goes further. It includes not only the broad proclamation of a continued “armed conflict with Al Qaeda,” but also the desire for Congress to “reaffirm that for the duration of the conflict the United States may detain as enemy combatants those who have engaged in hostilities or purposefully supported Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations.”

It is truly galling to think that our country has a policy that allows us to hold someone forever under this title of enemy combatant as the jurors in the trial of Osama bin Ladens driver found out. They tried to put in in prison until Bush was out of office as a demonstration that they felt this policy was wrong. They were shocked to discover that he could be held forever,

"After all the effort that we put in to get somebody a fair trial . . . and then to say no matter what we did it didn’t matter — I don’t see that as a positive step," the juror said.

The administration contends that it can hold enemy combatants for as long as the war on terror lasts. If congress goes back and affirms in the way bush wants it will ensure that anyone acquitted or sentenced in Guantanamo will be staying in Guantanamo.

The decision is up to congress. Do they want to be seen as the patsies of the Bush administration again? I have little confidence that they will grow a spine and stand up to the Bush admin. Even as we celebrate the coming of the end for Bush we will be stuck with his flawed policies and ideology entrenched in our laws and government.

Read more...

No Ceremony for Those Who Marry in Kings, Kern, Butte

Three counties in California will not be performing ceremonies for Gay couples who wish to marry. A previous diary on Kos detailed that Kern County Auditor-Controller-County Clerk Ann Barnett has stopped performing ceremonies for couples who want to marry with a civil service. Not reported was that the symbolic gesture appeared to be spreading as Merced, Butte and Kings Counties also said they will cease performing ceremonies. However, an in depth look at the situation reveals the possibility that only Kern and Kings appear to be refusing out of anti-gay sentiment.

The official reason cited by these counties is budgetary concerns. If we examine the budget for Butte county, we find that Butte did in fact have an $8,447 difference in the amount budgeted for services and supplies and the amount requested for the 07-08 fiscal year. Also denied was a request for two additional positions. A search around the net reveals that the situation in Butte seems to be a legitimate decision in response to budgetary concerns. Dagon at pamshouseblend.com spoke to Candace J. Grubbs, the elected Clerk-Recorder, on Monday June 9, 2008. She reported that

After the Primary Election, her office found itself in a budget crunch. They had to leave positions unfilled. She had to look at all the duties of her job and see what she could NOT do and get by. Wedding ceremonies are a "may" ,not a "must do" for Clerk-Recorders. Plus, Ms. Grubbs sees herself as in competition with the private sector ... not only religious folks, but also non-religious folk AND the "deputies for a day."

In California, for a small fee through Ms. Grubbs office, ANYONE may officiate at a single wedding. They apply, get trained in how to fill out the paper work, and officiate at the one wedding. Way cool. Ms. Grubbs thinks this is so much more personal and pleasant an option than one of her staff, unknown to the couple, officiating at the nuptials.

Dagon is of the opinion that Grubbs is sincere and not doing this out of some desire to symbolically thwart the marriage of same sex couples. In response to that question about Ms. Grubbs, Dagon said,

But I spent a good 15+ minutes on the phone with Ms. Grubbs this morning. I probed this way and that. She sure had all the correct answers of a good business woman and a non-homophobe. I did not pick up ANY bias at all in her decision to stop the ceremonies ... none at all. And I was looking for it.

She did not know me from Adam. She knew I was not a reporter and did live in the county. That is all she knew about me. But we had a most pleasant time on the phone ... well I was migraining and not speaking very clearly so I had the sympathy thing going for me. But I really and truly did not pick up any bias.

And at Chico Pride Fest on Saturday, there were fliers around from Wedding Planners ready to provide you with a male or female officiate for your ceremony. There is a private sector in Butte County to provide wedding ceremonies.

And the "deputy for a day" for wedding ceremonies is "must" for the Clerk's office ... she has to provide that service.

I am almost convinced that budgetary problems are not a fig leaf to hide the real intent of Ms. Grubbs. Still, I remain somewhat skeptical. The services cost $37 each and it seems like it would be a way of making money to help cover some of the budget shortfall. It is possible however, that Ms. Grubs duties do not allot enough time to perform the ceremonies and complete her other duties. Cursory research found that ceremonies took anywhere from 10-30 minutes to perform. Ms. Grubbs estimated 200 ceremonies a year. That does not seem like an inordinate amount of time, especially as there is not likely to be more than two on any given day.

Something that may or may not lead credence to the actions of Ms. Grubbs is what happened in Merced. Stephen Jones, the clerk for Merced had originally declared he too would cease ceremonies over budgetary concerns. He received immediate pressure to reverse his decision. He eventually did so after receiving another clerk position to perform weddings and some additional space. His office performs 500 weddings a year. Note though that he too is suspected of acting initially out of anti-gay sentiment but being undercut when his excuse was erased.

Jones sent an e-mail Thursday morning to Dee Tatum, county chief executive officer, and the Board of Supervisors outlining his decision to stop performing weddings.

In his response, sent before Jones announced plans to stop performing marriages, Tatum wrote, “If space is a problem, then certainly we can make (room) 301 available and 310, as well as the board chambers when it is not in use.”

Tatum added, “I would suggest before you take this step to see if this is legally defensible. I place no value on whether marriages are right or wrong or should be conducted or not. We, the organization, will certainly be asked why after all these years we have taken this step.”

The same article that gives the information on Jones also includes a quote from another clerk regarding the financial implications of performing the ceremonies.

Contrary to the claim from Kern County that the ceremonies are a drain on resources, Weir, the clerk in Contra Costa County, said they make money.
"It is a financial plus," said Weir, whose office makes $72,000 a year solemnizing marriages at $60 a pop. "It's something you can do fairly easily, pays its own way and is a service you are providing to your customer."

There are a couple possible sets implications from this information. The first is that Butte is not charging enough for the ceremony or that the private sector there is forcing them out of business by undercutting them. The second is that Ms. Grubbs is using the cessation of ceremonies as leverage for more resources in her budget battle with the county. If enough pressure is applied to start up the ceremonies, she may get the money for the positions she wanted. The last possibility is that Grubbs was simply lying and fooled Dagon.

Circumstantial evidence suggests that the last possibility is not highly unlikely Proposition 22 was passed in Butte 69-31. In comparison, Kern County was 80 and Merced County voters supported it with 77 percent voting in favor. The proposition passed statewide with 61 percent of the vote.

What is not in dispute is that the Kern County Auditor/Controller/County Clerk Ann Barnett is definitely doing this out of a desire to symbolically thwart same sex couples right to marry. She went as far as she could to avoid aiding the couples in any manner and when that failed, she canceled all the services. She ended up canceling 25 heterosexual ceremonies that had been scheduled after June 13 to prevent the same sex couples from getting their ceremonies.

Kern County is a notoriously conservative place and that someone in this county would refuse to abide by the law when it comes to equal rights for homosexuals should have almost been expected. I do not expect that the end to ceremonies will last particularly long. There is enormous pressure, if not in Kern, from the State that wants to see the courts ruling enforced as a matter of precedent and keeping law and order. Ann Barnett will have to do the ceremonies or resign. Her budgetary excuse is utter nonsense.

Little information exists about the situation in king county. the most commonly cited information is this

The clerk in Kings County has indicated he does not plan to grant the new licenses until the Court of Appeals takes that step, said Stephen Weir, president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials.

Kings County has a notice on its Web site saying it does "not anticipate any changes in our current marriage license procedures until such time as the lower court's implementation rulings take effect."

The legal question Kings County is using is a question over the Supreme Court's decision ordering a lower-level court, that had upheld California’s law on traditional marriage, to issue a new order favoring gay marriage. There is debate about when that appeals court must comply. Kings County is taking the position that it does not have to issue gay marriage licenses until that court issues the revised order. Not sure how long that will hold up.

Read more...