Skip to main content

Rep. Georgette 'Jo' Jordan, who represents Hawaii's 44th State House District made history yesterday. She now has the dubious distinction of being the first openly gay LGBT legislator vote against LGBT Equality and Same-Sex Marriage.

As a member of the gay community who has been an advocate and activist fighting for LGBT Equality and rights my entire adult life, I am appalled. By her own admission:

    75% of the district she represents is in favor of Marriage Equality
    55% of the State of Hawaii is in favor of Marriage Equality

"I might vote against something that I personally believe in. I personally believe I should have the right." - Rep. Jo Jordan
In the midst of the growing anger from within the LGBT Community, Jordan held an interview with Honolulu Magazine yesterday to try to explain her irrational vote. The rambling, and at times nonsensical, interview raised more questions than it answered.

She claims that she wants to protect religion, I think. The interview is very incoherent and disjointed, so it is hard to read.

For example:

"I haven’t figured out why I felt so compelled to fight for the religious exemptions, to not erode Constitutional rights. I don’t belong to any particular denomination. I don’t wear one of those hats. I take religion out of everything. My religion is the mountain, the aina and spiritual. Everybody finds their own religion somewhere. I have the same values as they do, but it’s just a little different. When I walked into this session, that rose to the surface. Why me? Why am I trying to protect your religious rights?

I’m still trying to figure out. I’ve always followed paths. I don’t find the path. The path finds me. This, obviously, is a path I’m supposed to go. You’re not supposed to question. Just ‘OK.’"

Most of her public statements on the matter thus far similarly lack coherence, so it is hard to analyze the thought process behind any of the decisions that she makes. Since she doesn't seem to have any personal convictions of her own, she has latched onto somebody who clearly does: Rep. Marcus Oshiro, Chairman of the Hawaii House Finance Committee.

Rep. Oshiro makes his position on same-sex marriage very clear in his appearance on this episode of Jordan's "Jordan's Journal":

http://vimeo.com/...

As in her Honolulu magazine interview, her comments all throughout this episode display her incoherence and ignorance on the subject at hand.  At one point, she claims that she has only "been here for like 2 years" and "doesn't understand how things work yet". That is unacceptable for any employee, let alone a public servant tasked with making big decisions that affect millions of people's lives.

To her credit though, Rep. Jordan did a great job of memorizing the talking points she was given. While I disagree with Rep. Oshiro, at least he came prepared to defend his beliefs. It is clear that his many years of education have enabled him to clearly form and articulate his positions.

Show Me The Money Trail!

She was appointed to her seat in 2011 and elected for the first time in 2012, so there isn't a very long money trail to follow. The limited information that is available though, is quite revealing.

She collected $37,514 during the 2012 Election cycle. According to both Project Vote Smart and Follow The Money, she received $250 and an endorsement of her candidacy from the National Rifle Association.

Another big backer of Rep. Jo Jordan is Big Tobacco. Altria, (formerly Phillip Morris) gave her $1,000, and R.J. Reynolds gave her $500. The "Friends of Marcus Oshiro" also donated $1000 to her.

I haven't been able to find a direct financial connection to Big Religion yet, but based on her record and that of her mentor, Rep Oshiro, it's pretty evident that one exists. After all, it's not every day that Brian Jones, the president of the anti-gay Hate Group, "National Organization for Marriage" offers his high praise to an openly gay Lesbian for her "integrity":

"Democratic Representative Georgia "Jo" Jordan is an openly gay lawmaker in Hawaii. And she is voting against same-sex marriage. She says the reasons for her opposition are concerns about the use of a special session to force this issue through, and her desire to better understand the consequences of redefining marriage.

Despite being called "Judas" in the gay press (along with suffering some other malignant and tasteless personal attacks) she is doing the right thing to express concerns about the many examples of punishment that people have suffered when marriage has been redefined elsewhere. Legal scholars on both sides of the issue brought this to the attention of all lawmakers, and it’s gratifying that Rep. Jordan is examining those concerns."

The right wing anti-gay movement's use of the special session as a reason to attack the vote also falls flat. I don't recall this being raised as an issue when Gov. Rick Perry called THREE Special Sessions to ram the Abortion Bill through the Texas Legislature..

Rep. Jordan's ignorance and apparent inability to form coherent thoughts and positions of her own has allowed her to become a tool that is being skillfully used by anti-gay special interest groups to continue to try to stop the forward momentum of LGBT Equality.  

I know that may sound harsh, but the truth sometimes is harsh: 

-Gay teens are 8.4 times more likely to report having attempted suicide and 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression compared with peers from families that reported no or low levels of family rejection.

-Studies indicate that between25% and 50% of homeless youth are LGBT and on the streets because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

-In 2011 there were 30 anti-LGBT murders across the country, the highest number ever recorded.

-Cab driver tries to force Gay couple out on to a dangerous Highway for kissing

When the driver demanded that we get out of the cab, I was afraid. It was late, there was a storm, we were on an expressway, and I can’t imagine what would have happened if the driver had actually kicked us out of the cab.
-Rep. Jo Jordan voted against the LGBT community that she claims to be a part of;

-Rep. Jo Jordan voted against 75% of her constituents;

-Rep. Jo Jordan voted against 55% of the residents of the State of Hawaii.

When you cast your vote against LGBT Marriage Equality, Rep. Jordan, you cast your vote for the continued violation of the LGBT community's civil rights, by default.

Your ignorance is not a sufficient reason to grant you a pass for helping to support the continued violation and suppression of millions of people's rights.

Please join me in asking Rep. Jordan to do the right thing for her district, the state of Hawaii and the LGBT Community and resign, and writing or calling her official office in Hawaii.

If she chooses not to resign, I am sure the good people of Hawaii's 44th District will show her the door in 2014. I will certainly be maxing out my donation to her opponent.

I am certainly willing to listen to alternative theories as to why she may have voted the way that she did. Does anybody have one? Please let me know in the comments below!

Originally posted to The Liberal Brew on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 01:14 PM PST.

Also republished by Angry Gays.

Poll

Should Hawaii State Rep. Jo Jordan, The First Openly Gay LGBT Legislator To Vote AGAINST Marriage Equality, Resign?

81%77 votes
18%18 votes

| 95 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  That is some fucked up shit right there. nt (5+ / 0-)
  •  yup, follow the money (4+ / 0-)

    only reason I can see for her incoherent babble

    •  Slightly more complicated than that in Hawaii (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wilderness voice, Woody, Denver11

      Things done here in a small state where everybody knows everybody and you are part of some network or "hui"can be a bit more based on "the Favor Bank."   It's money and power and influence together on a wider scale than purely money.

      "It's too LATE to stop now!" - John Lee Hooker

      by Rolfyboy6 on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 03:24:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Completely befuddling (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wilderness voice, Steveningen

    and her explanations are indeed a total and complete mess. We need to work to primary her in a big way. She had her chance to explain her vote and she completely failed.

    •  Watch the Interview (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fcvaguy, Steveningen, Woody, sfbob

      That she does with Rep. Marcus Oshiro. She was clearly coached and is supported by him in this shameful endeavor.

      There is even a point in the video (near the 11 minute mark.)  where she says "We had given 'em half the apple already, right?"

      This just serves to further alienate herself from the LGBT Community she claims to be a part of.  I suppose she will have a great future on the "ex-gay" speaking circuit though.

      •  I Agree. Classic "Those People" Language. (0+ / 0-)

        My guess is that she had a lesbian relationship go bad and she has now adopted a "I'll show those people".

        The thing she should have said no to is that Honolulu Poof from the 80's combined with a mullet from the 90's, a combo (ala Billy Ray Cyrus) sported by Nancy Brinker in the 2010's.

        "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.” - Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003

        by kerplunk on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 06:25:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  "I don't know why I voted the way I did (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steveningen, sfbob

    but I will defend to the death my right to vote that way."

  •  Yikes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steveningen, Cali Scribe, stevemb

    You know, if she'd left it at something simple like, "I oppose the idea of calling a special session to consider just this issue," then I could understand it. Disagree, but at least understand. But that rambling bit of incoherent babble just leaves me going WTF?

  •  Somebody has some incriminating (0+ / 0-)

    photos or other documents?

    •  I'll be watching (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rolfyboy6, LuvSet, prfb

      I intend to keep looking for evidence and will be following the public record of her campaign donors very closely.

      I hope that as new details surface, people will post them here or on my site:

      http://liberalbrew.com/...

      The LGBT Community is on the verge of the historic acceptance of our Equal Rights.

      I am not willing to remain silent when either the right-wing anti-gay machine or one self-loathing/and or greedy lesbian legislator tries to stand in the way of progress.

  •  I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt (6+ / 0-)

    and see how she defended her reasoning. I assumed there must have been some deep compelling argument that swayed her decision. But when I read the interview you link to above, I came to the exact same conclusion you did. She was completely incoherent. Much of what she had to say was gibberish and what I could make out made me deeply suspicious and question who has been in her ear. Or her wallet. Brian Brown standing up and applauding her integrity? Please. If she's the best they've got to counter our advances, they are in sad shape indeed.

  •  Babbling abut protecting religion is a sure (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Woody, Cali Scribe

    sign that her motive is not rational, it may be money, it may be some other quid pro quo, but religion is not at risk and needs no defence, so she is either lying or crazy.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 03:13:45 PM PST

    •  She is appealing to the knee jerk religious (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      enhydra lutris, sfbob

      segment of the populace.  Hawaii was afflicted with missionaries and the beat goes on.

      "It's too LATE to stop now!" - John Lee Hooker

      by Rolfyboy6 on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 03:16:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Afflicted with missionaries and merchants, (0+ / 0-)

        summarizes much of Hawaii's history. Toss in the US Marines and a few other wrongdoers, and you get the whole period between the first visits by whaler's and the attack on Pearl Harbor.

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 03:23:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Missionaries, merchants, Marines... "Massie Case" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          enhydra lutris, Woody

          http://archives.starbulletin.com/...

          Adm. Yates Sterling, the commander of U.S. naval forces in Hawaii, encouraged military personnel to take the law into their own hands; he also did everything in his power to convince the federal government and the American public at large that Hawaii was on the verge of a race war and that the islands were so unsafe for white women that more than 40 had been raped the year prior to Massie's allegation — outright lies.

          The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war. ♥ ♥ ♥ Forget Neo — The One is Minori Urakawa

          by lotlizard on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 03:58:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  No church, synagogue, temple, etc. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      enhydra lutris, sfbob

      is forced to support same-sex marriages. It has nothing to do with the civil law.
        I'm old enough to remember when most Christian churches were so anti-divorce (something Jesus DID condemn while saying NOTHING about sexual orientation) that they wouldn't perform or recognize 2nd marriages. In my childhood in the '60s, most divorced-and-remarried couples got their second wedding ceremonies at courthouses.  Conservative Christians (and conservative Jews, for that matter) did like divorce and remarriage, and a few even tried to get stricter divorce laws, but they didn't claim they were being religiously persecuted. They understood the difference between church teachings and civil law.

      "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War. http://www.kynect.ky.gov/ for healthcare coverage in Kentucky

      by SouthernLeveller on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 04:22:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If anyone wants to run against her (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LuvSet

    the 24th District is an urban Honolulu district with a modestly hip mostly middle class populace with above average education.  

    per the Hawaii.gov Elections factsheet:

    24th Representative District Island of Oahu – Portion of Honolulu District (portion of Moiliili, Makiki, Tantalus, Pawaa, Punahou
    If she's an Oshiro protege then she's connected.  Marcus Oshiro is a very senior legislator with big "piston" in Hawaii politics.  He's a committee chairman twice over and has been the Majority Leader in the Hawaii House.

    "It's too LATE to stop now!" - John Lee Hooker

    by Rolfyboy6 on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 03:15:18 PM PST

    •  She is in the 44th District (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tharu1, LuvSet

      Not 24th.

      True. You don't become chairman of the finance committee of any legislative body without connections.

      •  Jesus, what's she doing representing Waianae (0+ / 0-)

        Granted that's more religious less educated "local" area and such, but how the hell did she get appointed to that District?  She's gotta be Oshiro's dog.

        "It's too LATE to stop now!" - John Lee Hooker

        by Rolfyboy6 on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 03:29:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I was wondering the same thing. (0+ / 0-)
          75% of the district she represents is in favor of Marriage Equality
          I'd find that very surprising, although it might be the case if there's strong emphasis on "the constituents she'd heard from", and that's a result of a strong activist base.  Because otherwise, I wouldn't expect the 44th to be a very pro-marriage district, to put it mildly.

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 05:01:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  She sounds like she has mental health issues (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SoCalLiberal

    She really sounds like she has a substance abuse problem or mental health issues that need to be addressed. And perhaps being an elected official is not the best job for someone having trouble with logical or rational thought.

    **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

    by CatM on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 03:37:40 PM PST

  •  She's clearly incompetent and not very bright. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sfbob, LuvSet, Karen from Maui

    Unfortunately, so are many legislators at the state and federal level.

  •  The interview makes more sense than one would (0+ / 0-)

    first think. Despite this statement...

    I’m not here to protect the big churches or the little churches...
    ...she continues...
    I’m saying we can’t erode what’s currently out there.
    What's currently out there if I understand correctly is a set of religious exemptions that is extraordinarily robust.

    What's pretty evident is that she doesn't trust the courts.

    We don’t want to scratch at the religious protections at all, because if we don’t create a measure that’s bulletproof, or as close to bulletproof as possible, then the measure will go to the courts. And they will interpret it however that may be. A judge will make assumptions and make a ruling, and that will become the law of the land. So you really want us to create the legislation.
    It may be, since others have pointed it out, that she would prefer to have a legislative determination made on marriage equality because judicial rulings will provide few if any religious exemptions. Her biggest error is in assuming that the passage of a law with religious exemptions that go beyond what would pass Constitutional (and therefore judicial) muster is one guaranteed way of seeing to it that those exemptions are challenged in court.

    I don't see this as a case where someone has a substance abuse problem. She simply does not understand her job and is in way over her head, which makes it so much easier for her to be co-opted by people with an agenda. If it's true that the mass of anti-equality witnesses and the demonstrations outside of the legislature are what swayed her, then it's really difficult to reconcile that with this:

    I’ve won an election, and sworn to uphold the constitution of the state as well as the United States.
    Rather than do her job she let herself be swayed by a mob having a well-choreographed tantrum.
    •  You make some good points (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sfbob

      "I don't see this as a case where someone has a substance abuse problem. She simply does not understand her job and is in way over her head, which makes it so much easier for her to be co-opted by people with an agenda. If it's true that the mass of anti-equality witnesses and the demonstrations outside of the legislature are what swayed her, then it's really difficult to reconcile that with this"

      It is definitely clear that she is in over her head. I am not sure if it is due to her lack of a higher education, her lack of experience or that she was chosen simply chosen to be a puppet - with or without her knowledge, or a combination of all three.

      Our whole country is under assault and the nation's entire legislative agenda has been stymied because of similarly weak-minded and ignorant individuals who are manipulated into running for office by outside influences seeking to control the levers of power from the shadows.

      Regardless of the reason, ignorant people like her in such important leadership positions are dangerous. They must be identified and voted out of office as soon as possible.

      As Socrates said: "There is only one good, Knowledge. and one evil, ignorance."

  •  I wonder what she sees for herself (0+ / 0-)

    long term? I mean, since she's on the losing side in this instance, does she think her "courage" in standing up for her principles (?) will help her in her career? As an out lesbian ... ? With a mullet?

  •  Is there a logical argument? (0+ / 0-)

    Jo didn't provide one, but just so I can be prepared, is there any logical argument against marriage equality?

    Typically, rights are denied individuals when there is an externality-that is-when one's behavior significantly effects another.   That is why I can't yell "fire" in a movie theater.

    Where is the externality here?  If two gay people want to enter a legal/spiritual contract like most of the straight world, how does it possibly effect the straight world?  And wouldn't it help lend stability to society?  After all, the stability of a legal promise is good for everyone.

    The argument that it is against my religion doesn't hold either.   We can't make public policy based on any one religion.  

    Since conservatives worship the protection of individual rights and freedoms, why not here?

  •  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 ]

  •  She should certainly NOT resign. (0+ / 0-)

    Let her face the people and account for her vote....I'm sure they'll be very interested to hear why she voted contrary to their wishes.

    "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

    by Australian2 on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 08:12:27 PM PST

  •  There were a number of incoherant anti-gay (0+ / 0-)

    Rep Mele Carroll, a native Hawaiian (whose culture embraced gay marriage) and an ardent Christian made a long, rambling speech claiming that "outsiders" were destroying Hawaiian culture by supporting equal rights.

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    •  They have to be incoherent (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kerplunk

      In order to confuse people into believing that what they say makes any kind of logical sense.  

      I am sorry, but the fact that they believe in an invisible man in the sky with a penchant for tossing people into pits of fire for all eternity, is not justification for continuing the persecution of millions of LGBT people across the world.

Click here for the mobile view of the site