Skip to main content

View Diary: God, Guns And A Gay: Why HI LGBT Rep. Jo Must Go (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  As a transgendered woman, I find her position (0+ / 0-)

    legitimate.

    From your link:


    It’s about, are we creating a measure that meets the needs of all?

    I had come to the decision that SB1 needed to amended. It wasn’t protective enough for everybody.

    When you look at a measure, you have to consider, how do we make this the golden standard, as bulletproof as possible? My major concerns on SB1 was, first, the parental maternal rights, 57-2c, that wasn’t healthy. That definitely needed to be fixed. The religious exemption was not adequate enough. And the divorce portion in there is not fair. We’re talking about creating equity. They have made a provision here where you don’t have to domicile here. And I totally get what they’re saying, but I have some serious problems with that. We should at least make some sort of domicile in our state, so they can file for divorce here.

    My first and foremost desires are for Equity Under Law.  If we all aren't equal under said, it becomes illegitimate.

    And what I think what got stuck in her craw was exactly what she said:

    We don’t need a lot of Mainlanders coming and telling us what we gotta do.
    Your diary doesn't elicit these facts for some reason.  If the bill is bad and I knew it, I wouldn't vote for it either.  She believes that what has been offered up is insufficient for all.

    I must respect that not attack her for being "incoherent", it's clear to me FROM YOUR LINK, she understood her duty as an elected official.

    It’s about, are we creating a measure that meets the needs of all?
    Has anyone asked her what it would take to vote for the bill???  Since I really don't know what committee or group wrote the bill in question. Does she have the power to present her own amendments to it?  To make it better?  Can she?

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 06:30:54 PM PST

    •  Mainlanders imposed Christianity (0+ / 0-)

      It was HAWAIIANS who were ok with gay relationships

      These internally colonized Hawaiians are self-contradictory.

      Most Hawaiians do not share their views and most of the Hawaiian churches embrace equality.

      The anti-gay churches are the Mormons, Catholics and New Hopers.

      •  Thanks, I understand this but we've become (0+ / 0-)

        more than those religions.  Therein lay the difference.  

        Today, they have what we've espoused, self-rule.  This representative has matured enough to know that personal interests must not supersede her duties to all.  

        She believes that the bill in question has too many flaws and will not ensure Equity Under Law.  I don't see this as "self-contradictory" but an evolved sense of duty.  Something we democrats once championed.

        The majority of issues we face as a society today are because our corrupt Congress-Critters pass self serving laws.  They don't care whom will be effected as long as they get what they personally want, money, wealth, power, whatever may be desired.

        If all are not bound by the law equally, where will we be in another 100 yrs?  If we pass laws that destroy other constitutionally protected rights, what's the point then?

        Do my rights to get married supersede your religious beliefs?  No, they are equal rights.  I don't need your religion or your permission to love someone.  And further, I don't need your acceptance of said.  I do, however, expect to enjoy the same rights others do.

        Reading the interview, I was impressed and amazed at this honest politician whom understood the difference when one controls the levers of our government.

        We should be asking her what needs to be changed to make it equitable and then working towards that solution.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 10:18:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Denver11, Little

      Let's dissect the link I quoted and you re-quoted a bit further.


      It’s about, are we creating a measure that meets the needs of all?
      Is it really possible to create a law, of any kind that fully meets the needs of every individual in every given scenario? Of course it isn't. Every law that has ever been written has initially fallen short in some way or another. That is why laws tend to get amended over time, as flaws are discovered.
      When you look at a measure, you have to consider, how do we make this the golden standard, as bulletproof as possible?
      What does she mean "the golden standard"? As compared to what? Bulletproof against what? Judicial review? Legislative review?
      My major concerns on SB1 was, first, the parental maternal rights, 57-2c, that wasn’t healthy. That definitely needed to be fixed.
      §572-C Right of parents. Parentage rights, benefits,
      protections, and responsibilities based on marriage shall be the
      same for all married spouses regardless of the gender of the
      spouses. These rights, benefits, protections, and
      responsibilities shall include paternity, maternity, and
      parentage presumptions based on marriage.

      After reading of the text of the law, It seems to me that the key phrase here is "Based on Marriage". That implies to me that this would protect both spouses' parental rights in same sex marriage, similar to heterosexual marriages. I am not a legal scholar, but nothing strikes me as onerus.

       

       

      The religious exemption was not adequate enough. And the divorce portion in there is not fair.
      Really? The law specifically states that no clergy, of any denomination can be forced to perform ceremonies and that any that do refuse will not subject to fines. The only exemption I see is in regards to the use of church grounds that are regularly rented out to the general public for a profit.  They even specifically stated:

      "For purposes of this section, a religious organization
      accepting donations from the public, providing religious
      services to the public, or otherwise permitting the public to
      enter the religious organization's premises shall not constitute 'For a profit'"

      That makes those grounds a publicly operated business and subject to anti-discrimination laws. If they feel that strongly about the issue, they are free to stop doing so and they would then be fully protected, under the law.

      John Becker over at the Bilreco Project wrote a much more detailed article about this topic here.

      We’re talking about creating equity.
      Indeed, we are, and they did:

      Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to:
      (1) Ensure that same-sex couples are able to take full
       advantage of federal rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities granted to married opposite-sex couples by allowing same-sex couples to marry under the laws of this State;

      (2) Ensure that there be no legal distinction between same-sex married couples and opposite-sex married couples with respect to marriage under the laws of  this State by applying all provisions of law regarding marriage equally to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples regardless of whether this Act does or does not amend any particular provision of law

       

      They have made a provision here where you don’t have to domicile here. And I totally get what they’re saying, but I have some serious problems with that. We should at least make some sort of domicile in our state, so they can file for divorce here.
      This is another of her statements that is incoherent I am not sure I "totally get" what she is trying to say. I think she seems to be upset that they have provided people who do not live in Hawaii but fly there solely to get married, a way to get divorced should the need arise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Hawaii one of the most popular destinations in the country for straight couples to get married and/or honeymoon? Are they required to meet domicile requirements or fly back to Hawaii to get divorced?

      Now, on to your points.

      My first and foremost desires are for Equity Under Law.  If we all aren't equal under said, it becomes illegitimate.
      Please see above.
      And what I think what got stuck in her craw was exactly what she said:

      'We don’t need a lot of Mainlanders coming and telling us what we gotta do'.

      Interestingly enough, a complaint has been filed with the Hawaii Ethics Commission regarding the national Mormon Church and the National Organization for Marriage for allegedly violating state election laws in their campaign against same-sex marriage rights.
      Your diary doesn't elicit these facts for some reason.  If the bill is bad and I knew it, I wouldn't vote for it either.  She believes that what has been offered up is insufficient for all.
      I hope I have clarified some things a bit for you. I completely disagree with your assertion that the bill is "bad" or "insufficient for all". In fact, I think it is very well written and adequately addresses the concerns of both reasonable proponents and opponents. It seems that only religious or anti-gay bigots and their mouthpieces remain in opposition to it
      I must respect that not attack her for being "incoherent", it's clear to me FROM YOUR LINK, she understood her duty as an elected official.

      Has anyone asked her what it would take to vote for the bill???  Since I really don't know what committee or group wrote the bill in question. Does she have the power to present her own amendments to it?  To make it better?  Can she?

      I stand by what I said. Her explanations thus far have been incoherent ramblings.  Should she not tell her constituents what changes need to be made, in order to secure her vote? Did she not have that opportunity during her interview with Honolulu magazine?

      The fact remains that she has chosen to side with the outside religious right-wing anti-gay groups and to support their agenda and against the LGBT community and Equal Rights for all residents of Hawaii.

       

      •  Hum, so another diary thanks. (0+ / 0-)

        You've added many new issues giving a further in depth justification for your position.  Thank you.

        Let's go through them.
        1.  The issue of creating a law that meets the needs of all.  Your position is that we can't until it's modified as some future point.  The future is now, not next week, next year or next century.  For this reason I find your explanation wanting, respectfully.  This belief is how we are now all forced to buy a for-profit private product, ie. the ACA.  People like me that pushed for universal care were shutdown, "We'll fix it later", was the answer.  Three year on and we're no closer to universal coverage.

        2.  The "golden standard" I understood to be judicial review.  And she did say that.

        3.  The controversy over section 572c is a bit hard to get concrete information on.  You provide a quote but no link.
        I did find these things:

        http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/...

        Now it seems this controversial section was removed.

        http://purpleunions.com/...

        4.  The religious "for-profit" issue.  I found this:

        http://thinkprogress.org/...

        Lastly, the committee added religious protections similar to those included in Connecticut’s marriage equality law, protecting religious organizations from having to participate in the solemnization of a same-sex marriage.
        It's clear they compromised to allow an organization to make a little money and still be considered "non-profit".  And I really don't see a problem with this.  The issue you're pushing is the definition of a non-profit vs. for-profit business.  While I'd personally agree that if you're in it to make money, then you should be bound equally, as any other business, by the law.  We both have to face reality here.  These "religious" groups have controlled humanity for millennia to our collective detriment.

        The real question with these exceptions being put in, can the new bill be judicially reviewed for deny equity to those other non-religious businesses?  I'd have to say yes.  We do have the right to be free from religion as well.

        In my humble opinion, no one should be exempt from paying taxes, period.  I don't care your color or stripe.  If I'm taxed at 43%, then so should all.

        But that's another story.

        5.  The domicile issue, as I understand what I've read, she wants the couples to live in Hawaii to have legal standing.  Isn't that the basis for most of our laws anyways?  That's why all those credit card companies moved to Delaware and such.  Seems to me she wants Hawaii to be for Hawaiians.  Whether this is "right or wrong", I haven't decided yet.

        6.  As for the Mormon's and the ethics violations.  Seems to me that we really need to keep religion out of our system of government, period.  If they want to play, then they should pay equally as the rest of us. Strip them of their "non-profit" status.  

        And I still disagree with your position.  Those "Mainlander" organizations are the ones that will use their money to fight these laws in court.  Give them a small bone to chew on and they'll leave us alone to evolve beyond their clutches and controls.

        If you're so strongly against compromise, then you must be boiling at our "Great Compromiser", President Obama...

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 03:50:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site