If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Honolulu Magazine)   Hawaii state Rep. Jo Jordan is the first openly gay legislator...to vote against gay marriage   (honolulumagazine.com) divider line 120
    More: Interesting, Hawai'i State, GLBT, legislators, same-sex marriages, faith-based foreign aid  
•       •       •

2820 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Nov 2013 at 9:30 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-12 09:32:48 PM
Is Aunt Jo the new Uncle Tom?
 
2013-11-12 09:34:15 PM
Good. Someone who realizes men and women are different.
 
2013-11-12 09:36:09 PM
I had a really hard time understanding what her actual problem was with the bill.
 
2013-11-12 09:37:29 PM

BobCumbers: Good. Someone who realizes men and women are different.


0-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2013-11-12 09:37:57 PM
Her 'partner' probably wants to get hitched and Jo doesn't want her reining on her gay parade.
 
2013-11-12 09:38:35 PM

PerilousApricot: I had a really hard time understanding what her actual problem was with the bill.


She felt it wasnt worded well, and that it needed more work, and it was flawed as passed.

She outlined some of it rowards the end of the article. Mainly religous protections, domicile for divorce, child support stuff.
 
2013-11-12 09:38:42 PM

PerilousApricot: I had a really hard time understanding what her actual problem was with the bill.


It sounds like she feels that it was poorly written. In the transcript, she assumes whoever she's talking to already understands the sections of the bill she has a problem with. It doesn't sound like she's against gay marriage.
 
2013-11-12 09:39:40 PM

PerilousApricot: I had a really hard time understanding what her actual problem was with the bill.


From what I could parse, it was that the "religious exemptions" clause wasn't broad enough. But such clauses are already entirely redundant- no church is forced to marry anyone it doesn't approve of. Try taking your girlfriend to you local Catholic church, introduce yourselves as an atheist and a Buddhist, and see if the priest will marry you. Private wedding officiants (i.e. not government officials like a magistrate or JP) are already free to refuse to perform any marriage they don't want to, for any reason they choose, and always have been.
 
2013-11-12 09:41:24 PM

Summercat: Mainly religous protections, domicile for divorce, child support stuff.


Aside from the religious exemptions, none of the rest is any different than the existing marriage laws of the state. If that stuff is a problem, it's a problem with existing law.
 
2013-11-12 09:44:55 PM

Churchill2004: Try taking your girlfriend to you local Catholic church, introduce yourselves as an atheist and a Buddhist, and see if the priest will marry you.


Yeah, it takes more than just asking... most padres wouldnt do it for less than 3 bottles of Scotch
 
2013-11-12 09:46:22 PM

Palmer Eldritch: It sounds like she feels that it was poorly written.


There's really only one paragraph where she details her concerns with some clarity. The other 95% of her "answers" to TWO FARKING QUESTIONS (just 2!) is borderline incomprehensible word salad.
 
2013-11-12 09:51:49 PM
Palmer Eldritch:

It sounds like she feels that it was poorly written. In the transcript, she assumes whoever she's talking to already understands the sections of the bill she has a problem with. It doesn't sound like she's against gay marriage.

If she really had a spine, she would have said, "First and foremost, I believe that the State of Hawai'i should support marriage between any two people."

And then she could have gone all word salad about the minutiae of the law that she didn't like.

But, she didn't do that one simple thing. She deserves to be chastised and castigated.
 
2013-11-12 09:54:55 PM

Killer Cars: Palmer Eldritch: It sounds like she feels that it was poorly written.

There's really only one paragraph where she details her concerns with some clarity. The other 95% of her "answers" to TWO FARKING QUESTIONS (just 2!) is borderline incomprehensible word salad.


Yeah, that was my impression as well. What bothered me about the word salad is that I received the impression that she had an emotional, rather than rational, response to the bill - it's not that she "voted against gay marriage," but that she voted against a bill whose wording she didn't like, as if it was an "all or nothing" proposition against which she couldn't square her reaction.

I do, however, like the fact that she could separate the "cause" from the legislation. Voting in bad legislation, even for a good cause, is still poor statesmanship, and she apparently takes her job seriously enough to consider both aspects.
 
2013-11-12 09:56:18 PM

Kuta: Palmer Eldritch:

It sounds like she feels that it was poorly written. In the transcript, she assumes whoever she's talking to already understands the sections of the bill she has a problem with. It doesn't sound like she's against gay marriage.

If she really had a spine, she would have said, "First and foremost, I believe that the State of Hawai'i should support marriage between any two people."

And then she could have gone all word salad about the minutiae of the law that she didn't like.

But, she didn't do that one simple thing. She deserves to be chastised and castigated.


I agree somewhat, in that she didn't exactly make it clear that, although she supported the cause, she couldn't support the legislation. If I were LGBT, I'd be pissed at her as well for that display of ambivalence.
 
2013-11-12 09:57:23 PM
that was a pretty amazing non-answer she gave, wow
 
2013-11-12 09:59:45 PM
This obviously makes her less gay and less subject to discrimination than the married progressive heterosexuals that bravely voted for a tax increase on gay couples.
 
2013-11-12 09:59:58 PM
But you really didn't have time to process. Now we get into the hearing itself, make the decision. Now it's ready to hit the floor. I really didn't have any time to write anything down.

The Defense of Marriage Act, which banned gay marriage federally, was written in passed in 1993, partly as a response to the Supreme Court of Hawaii (you know - the state you live in) ruling that the state must show a compelling interest in banning same-sex marriage.  In 1993.

Do you honestly expect people to farking believe that you haven't had enough time in the last twenty years to process every farking argument for and against gay marriage?  They haven't changed in that time.

The religious exemption was not adequate enough.
The First Amendment, though is.

And the divorce portion in there is not fair.
You know what's even less fair - telling gays they don't have to worry about the divorce portion because they can't get married in the first place.

Congratulations lady - you're a walking, talking, pristine incarnation of the nirvana fallacy.
 
2013-11-12 10:04:30 PM
I support gay marriage, yet I agree with her that it's more important to get a good bill than to get just any bill.  The worst case is some people have to wait an extra week to marry (gay marriage is still going to pass, because the votes are there).  Best case is a better bill that prevents a lawsuit and a lot of headache.

Also, I share her disdain for "you're supposed to vote that way... you're [fixed trait]!" identity politics.  People should support gay marriage because it's morally incumbent on them to do so, not because they're gay.
 
2013-11-12 10:09:16 PM

tbeatty: This obviously makes her less gay and less subject to discrimination than the married progressive heterosexuals that bravely voted for a tax increase on gay couples.


fc02.deviantart.net
 
2013-11-12 10:11:32 PM

PerilousApricot: I had a really hard time understanding what her actual problem was with the bill.


One of my dearest friends is a Honolulu attorney who has devoted a lot of his time to this cause via a same-sex marriage case for the last three years. He had a link on his FB page that explained this woman's strange stance in more depth.

Apparently, her district is quite conservative, and about 1/3 of the voters were opposed to the measure. So Jordan decided that she had been elected to represent ALL her constituents, not just the ones she agreed with, and thus she couldn't really vote for a bill they didn't all agree with.

All this stuff about disagreeing with the language is pretty much post hoc rationalizing. She fell into the trap Edmund Burke warned representatives against over 300 years ago.
 
2013-11-12 10:15:37 PM

Summercat: PerilousApricot: I had a really hard time understanding what her actual problem was with the bill.

She felt it wasnt worded well, and that it needed more work, and it was flawed as passed.

She outlined some of it rowards the end of the article. Mainly religous protections, domicile for divorce, child support stuff.


So why wasn't she pressing to have the bill reworked before it got this far?  I can only assume she didn't walk in one day and go, "Oh, what's this here?  Hmm, no, needs some work--send it away."
 
2013-11-12 10:16:09 PM

Kuta: Palmer Eldritch:

It sounds like she feels that it was poorly written. In the transcript, she assumes whoever she's talking to already understands the sections of the bill she has a problem with. It doesn't sound like she's against gay marriage.

If she really had a spine, she would have said, "First and foremost, I believe that the State of Hawai'i should support keep its nose out of marriage between any two people."

And then she could have gone all word salad about the minutiae of the law that she didn't like.

But, she didn't do that one simple thing. She deserves to be chastised and castigated.


FTFY.  now GFY.
 
2013-11-12 10:17:15 PM
Hawaii state Rep. Jo Jordan is the first openly gay legislator...to vote against gay marriage

Wow, that's gay.
 
2013-11-12 10:17:15 PM

Jackson Herring: that was a pretty amazing non-answer she gave, wow


I believe the legal term is gobbledygook.
 
2013-11-12 10:20:22 PM
If she were my rep she would never get my vote again. Not because she voted her conscience against a bill that she believed to be badly written (I believe she was an author, right? WTF). No, she wouldn't get my vote because she took a few hundred words to give a half-assed response to a simple question that left me guessing what she truly meant.

/OK, who am I kidding, I'd vote for her again, if only because she is by many levels of certainty bound to be better than whatever the Repubs would dredge up.
//I wouldn't be happy.
///A meaningless third slashie to round out the trio.
 
2013-11-12 10:21:53 PM
People can be complicated, making decisions weighed by multiple conflicting emotions. Individual decisions are often unpredictable.
 
2013-11-12 10:22:14 PM
As a supporter of gay marriage I find her explanation believable, and the shrieking horde in the comments section to be just proving her point.

You need to allow gay marriage, but you need to do it in a way that will not be immediately challenged by the courts and potentially get tossed out.   Unless you WANT to go through another nutcase legal rollercoaster like those of us in California did.

If there is no religious exemption in there and the status of divorce legality is vague, then the law is flawed.  HI is not going to vote down gay marriage at this point, so why not take the time to do it right?
 
2013-11-12 10:26:57 PM
it's still ok to beat off at the DMV OK
 
2013-11-12 10:28:49 PM

Gyrfalcon: Apparently, her district is quite conservative, and about 1/3 of the voters were opposed to the measure. So Jordan decided that she had been elected to represent ALL her constituents, not just the ones she agreed with, and thus she couldn't really vote for a bill they didn't all agree with.


If she can only vote for bills that ALL of her constituents agree with, can't she just set up a sign that says "NO" and stay home?
 
2013-11-12 10:30:00 PM

jaerik: If there is no religious exemption in there and the status of divorce legality is vague, then the law is flawed. HI is not going to vote down gay marriage at this point, so why not take the time to do it right?


Gay marriage laws don't need religious exemptions for churches because churches can already refuse to marry anyone they don't want to.  If they weren't then why don't we see a continuous stream of headlines on FNC about atheists suing churches for officiating their weddings?
 
2013-11-12 10:31:42 PM
Good for her. She has issues with the legislation, and she's standing strong on protecting religious institutions, the institution of marriage itself (including same-sex it seems), and the constitution. Most important (and commendable) she seems to be committed to the idea that she is a duly elected representative first, and seems to be genuinely concerned that she only support good policy, not advancing her personal politics. We need more people like her.

If they iron out the problems enough for her to support it, it will be better legislation for it. Just really happy to see someone putting policy over politics or agenda.
 
2013-11-12 10:31:57 PM

jaerik: You need to allow gay marriage, but you need to do it in a way that will not be immediately challenged by the courts and potentially get tossed out. Unless you WANT to go through another nutcase legal rollercoaster like those of us in California did.


I don't believe Hawaii ever passed a state proposition banning same-sex marriage which is what caused the California legal issues.  Instead they voted to give the legislation the power to ban it with Constitutional Amendment 2.  Their own AG determined that this didn't prevent the state legislature from legalizing it however.
 
2013-11-12 10:33:05 PM

Fart_Machine: jaerik: You need to allow gay marriage, but you need to do it in a way that will not be immediately challenged by the courts and potentially get tossed out. Unless you WANT to go through another nutcase legal rollercoaster like those of us in California did.

I don't believe Hawaii ever passed a state proposition banning same-sex marriage which is what caused the California legal issues.  Instead they voted to give the legislation legislature the power to ban it with Constitutional Amendment 2.  Their own AG determined that this didn't prevent the state legislature from legalizing it however.


Fixed
 
2013-11-12 10:34:32 PM

thurstonxhowell: Gyrfalcon: Apparently, her district is quite conservative, and about 1/3 of the voters were opposed to the measure. So Jordan decided that she had been elected to represent ALL her constituents, not just the ones she agreed with, and thus she couldn't really vote for a bill they didn't all agree with.

If she can only vote for bills that ALL of her constituents agree with, can't she just set up a sign that says "NO" and stay home?


I cannot answer that question. I only know what her original explanation was, and that's what it was. She apparently felt in this case that the moral imperative to represent everyone outweighed her duty to vote her knowledge and conscience in their stead.
 
2013-11-12 10:36:47 PM
Isn't this where a legislator starts a-legislating?

"Well, I'm just a girl from the sticks..." is not an appropriate answer to why you didn't a-get to fixing it.

Less mad she voted no, more mad she didn't do her job. She should have made national news out of its inadequacy.
 
2013-11-12 10:40:27 PM

jaerik: If there is no religious exemption in there [1] and the status of divorce legality is vague [2], then the law is flawed. HI is not going to vote down gay marriage at this point, so why not take the time to do it right?


1 - I suspect you may be confusing "marriage" with "wedding".

2 - Gay marriages aren't any different from straight marriages, so you don't need to write special divorce rules for them.

There was nothing wrong with the law. This lady was probably just poorly informed or on drugs or something.
 
2013-11-12 10:44:12 PM

jaerik: so why not take the time to do it right?


"Perfect" the enemy of "good", etc...
 
2013-11-12 10:45:02 PM
I got a strong Unfrozen Caveman Legislator/Sarah Palin vibe from her defense.

Biological Ali:  This lady was probably just poorly informed or on drugs or something.

That as well. The issues she had with it extend to straight marriages as well. If straight people can get married with those problems then so should gay people. Fix the parts of the law you have issue with but don't exclude others in the process.
 
2013-11-12 10:54:05 PM
Eh, I guess I can see the counter-argument.  But if residency requirements are vague and divorce is going to be treated potentially differently than straight marriage, then that's a problem.  If her claims are just off-base, then... carry on.  I was just giving her the benefit of the doubt.

As for religious exemptions, it doesn't actually hurt anything to put one in, even if it's constitutionally protected through other channels.  It takes ten minutes to write and makes the fundies feel less threatened and hostile, so why not do it anyway?  That's what the other states have done.
 
2013-11-12 11:01:16 PM
I always have taken my personal hat off, my personal beliefs away from it, and said, "Look at the substance, what is the measure, have you heard all the dialogue, have you vetted everything? Have all your questions been answered? And are you willing to make a decision for the 1.4 million people in the state?"

When it comes to human rights, you had goddamned better be willing to do that.
 
2013-11-12 11:04:16 PM
Regardless of her motivations and reasoning, at least she has a horse in this race. I am less outraged about her being against gay marriage than some old white dude. I may not agree with her stance, but like I said, at least it isn't just the ol' 'Gay people are icky.' argument.
 
2013-11-12 11:05:02 PM

PerilousApricot: I had a really hard time understanding what her actual problem was with the bill.


Re-election in a conservative district.
 
2013-11-12 11:07:18 PM

Mikey1969: Regardless of her motivations and reasoning, at least she has a horse in this race. I am less outraged about her being against gay marriage than some old white dude. I may not agree with her stance, but like I said, at least it isn't just the ol' 'Gay people are icky.' argument.


It's the "We don't want to offend anti-gay people" argument.
 
2013-11-12 11:07:55 PM

Bane of Broone: I got a strong Unfrozen Caveman Legislator/Sarah Palin vibe from her defense.

Biological Ali:  This lady was probably just poorly informed or on drugs or something.

That as well. The issues she had with it extend to straight marriages as well. If straight people can get married with those problems then so should gay people. Fix the parts of the law you have issue with but don't exclude others in the process.


Maybe the point is that it's kind of silly to pass a flawed law just because the current 'straight' version(for want of a better term) is flawed too? Kind of makes sense to take the chance to at least make SOME part of all of this be done right from the beginning?

I don't know, but that seems to be what I'm getting out of it. Why pass a flawed version just to have to bring it back and start new fights all over again later? It's already most people's complaints that these people get into office and pass unconstitutional, stupid, or just plain "broken" laws...
 
2013-11-12 11:10:28 PM

Mikey1969: I am less outraged about her being against gay marriage than some old white dude


One day I'm going to be "some old white dude". I don't think me or my husband will be any less gay then.
 
2013-11-12 11:20:47 PM

Mikey1969: some old white dude


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-11-12 11:20:52 PM

evil saltine: Mikey1969: Regardless of her motivations and reasoning, at least she has a horse in this race. I am less outraged about her being against gay marriage than some old white dude. I may not agree with her stance, but like I said, at least it isn't just the ol' 'Gay people are icky.' argument.

It's the "We don't want to offend anti-gay people" argument.


Sorry, if a legislator doesn't feel like a bill that would touch them deeply is ready to be passed, I'm not too up in arms about it. Part of the pro gay marriage argument is that 'nobody is going to force any church to perform a marriage that they don't want to'. I've used it myself many times, so if we want to stand by that argument and not have it just be for show, sometimes we'll have to accept waiting. I'm not gay myself, but I believe in gay marriage. That doesn't mean that I believe that the religious institutions should ever HAVE to perform a ceremony. If that is a "We don't want to offend anti-gay people" argument, then I should probably apologize to my brother in law for "trampling his rights". I see it as keeping the pledge I've made many times. Also, I believe that a lot of stuff is going to have to be completely rewritten from the ground up regarding cohabitation, residency, property rights, parental rights, etc. I have no problem if this isn't rushed as long as the work they are doing is to(for once) get something right the first time around.
 
2013-11-12 11:24:13 PM

Churchill2004: Mikey1969: I am less outraged about her being against gay marriage than some old white dude

One day I'm going to be "some old white dude". I don't think me or my husband will be any less gay then.


Jesus, you know what I mean. Do I really need to post the Pat Robertson pics? I'm on my phone and really don't feel like trying to copy/paste pics for a shorthand that 1000 farkers have already used this farming week to say the same goddamm thing.
 
2013-11-12 11:25:42 PM

Mikey1969: 'nobody is going to force any church to perform a marriage that they don't want to'.


This is existing law, which has been settled law for hundreds of years, is compelled by the 1st Amendment, and absolutely nothing about same-sex marriage laws will ever change that. Provisions that provide for this are entirely redundant. They do not accomplish a single thing that would not otherwise be the case.

Mikey1969: Also, I believe that a lot of stuff is going to have to be completely rewritten from the ground up regarding cohabitation, residency, property rights, parental rights, etc.


You might "believe" that, but that doesn't make it true. SSM can be implemented without changing a single thing about existing marriage laws, and many states have done exactly that. All of those things affect SS and OS couples equally- there is absolutely zero need to change any of it to accommodate same-sex couples in particular.
 
2013-11-12 11:27:00 PM

evil saltine: Mikey1969: Regardless of her motivations and reasoning, at least she has a horse in this race. I am less outraged about her being against gay marriage than some old white dude. I may not agree with her stance, but like I said, at least it isn't just the ol' 'Gay people are icky.' argument.

It's the "We don't want to offend anti-gay people" argument.


A "Rick Warren Inaugural Invocation", so to speak.
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report