Bullfight

At least Grubbs admits the timing sent the wrong message at the wrong time, if you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

From KSBW:

Butte County Clerk Admits Poor Timing On Civil Marriages

Butte County Clerk Candace Grubbs said she will no longer perform any civil marriages.

“My decision to curtail marriages and put staff on other duties is the length of time it takes to perform ceremonies, and that essentially is it,” Butte County Clerk Candace Grubbs said.

Grubbs said her decision is about county resources, not politics. But the decision came just days before gay marriages became legal in California.

“The timing was poor and I've got to admit that. But in a small office, when you look at it, we have February election clean up -- budget had to get done,” Grubbs said.

Grubbs also serves as Butte County's recorder and registrar of voters. She said her staff is overwhelmed with county business with little time to perform 200 wedding ceremonies each year.

Butte County is a historically conservative place where traditional marriage has strong support, winning nearly 70 percent of the vote in the 2000 election.

At an Oroville flower shop, owner Julie Jackson is not expecting much in the way of new business when gay marriage becomes legal next week.

“We'll have a few more weddings possibly, maybe on a smaller scale,” Oroville Flower Shop owner Julie Jackson said.

For gay couples there will be other options in Butte County. The county offers a deputy for a day program authorizing anyone 18 or over, who knows the gay couple, to perform the ceremony for a $50 fee.

Well, this Kern County Clerk is more up front about her motives. She made the same decision based on "budget reasons" after "learning she could not marry only couples of her choosing."

I'd like to believe Grubbs' timing was just bad, which is why seeing staff memos dated months ago analyzing the budget considerations would would go a long way to answering questions about the possible real motives behind the decision.

Candace Grubbs in an intelligent woman. While I voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman in 2006 and am frankly against so-called same-sex marriage, I find it difficult to believe she would do anything so "transparent" that might hurt her position if it was not what was, as she stated, "necessary."

If I may, I would like to discuss the "motives" of the 4 justices on the CA Supreme Court. Wouldn't you agree that judges should know the meaning of the words they use in their decisions?
The word "couple" denotes two individuals (or things) of the same kind together. The term "Opposite-sex couples" isn't legitimate since the sex of the two people are obviously "opposites" and don't qualify as two of the same kind. Yet in the CA Supreme Court decision, the statements like "marriage is limited only to opposite-sex couples" and "civil marriage and the rights associated with it traditionally have been afforded only to opposite-sex couples" are used as the basis for granting marriage to "same-sex couples." A man and a woman are "opposite-sex individuals" and under the Bill of Rights, every individual already has the right to marry. Further, does the Bill of Rights mention "ouples" rights---or justindividual rights?

Hi Ruth: I think the "motives" and rationale of the four majority opinion justices can be clearly understood by reading the court ruling here.

"Marriage" is a religious term. There is no way for the government to be involved with marriages and still keep separate from religion. What the government used to call 'marriage' they should now call a 'civil union' and let churches take care of marriages. 'Civil union' will now mean, legally, what marriage used to mean, while marriage can mean whatever your god(s), aliens or sacred leader want it to mean.