Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Um, What?

Jim Burroway

November 7th, 2013

Hawaii Democratic state Rep. Jo Jordan — make that openly gay Democratic state Rep. Jo Jordan — seems to be suffering either from some kind of political Stockholm syndrome, some misguided martyrdom complex, or maybe she just feels like she has something to prove. I don’t know. But guess what?

One lawmaker, Democratic Rep. Jo Jordan of Waianae, said on the floor that she would oppose the bill — despite her thoughts and beliefs and gay marriage potentially benefiting her personally.

“No, nobody’s going to beat me up. Nobody’s going to throw me out of my (LGBT) community — I’m not quite sure of that,” Jordan said.

But Jordan said she set aside her beliefs when she listened to five days of testimony during a joint committee hearing and listened with an open heart. Much of spoken public testimony during the hearing came in opposition to the bill.

“I might vote against something that I personally believe in. I personally believe I should have the right,” Jordan said. “You know how hard it is for me to say no? I have to say no.”

Jordan voted “no” during yesterday’s unusually contentious Second Reading. Preliminary celebrations aside, second readings are ordinarily procedural votes to consider amendments and move the bill from committee to the House floor. The real vote, the one that counts, is the Third Reading which is scheduled for tomorrow. But because yesterday’s 30-18 vote was so contentious, I think it gives us a good indication of where things stand for final passage.

Because the House has made a few changes to the bill, it must now go back to the Senate for a concurrence vote. Again, this is ordinarily a simple procedural vote. Last weekend there had been some concerns expressed that the Senate may not go along with the House’s proposed expansion of the religious exemption clauses. But now it looks like the Senate is on board, so concurrence should be no big deal, although this report says that it won’t get to the Senate “until Tuesday, at earliest.”  I’m keeping my champagne on ice for a while.

You can track the bill’s progress here.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

james
November 7th, 2013 | LINK

I have no idea what she is saying. She has given no reason why she is voting no, only that it’s her prerogative, which it is. There must have been lots of people from her district who testified against the bill.

james
November 7th, 2013 | LINK

Jim Burroway, we may revoke your gay card for confusing champaign, a city in Illinois, with champagne, a sparkling wine kept on ice. It’s question 518 on the LGBT community entrance exam!

Ryan
November 7th, 2013 | LINK

She listened with an open heart to those who hold her in contempt. Very sad. As for her other comments, I don’t want anyone to beat her up, but if she thinks she’s going to be invited to the next Hawaii Pride Parade, I think she’s quite mistaken. I hope so, anyway. This woman has declared herself to not be a member of the LGBT community.

Ray
November 7th, 2013 | LINK

Compared to her co-conspirator, Rep. Ward, she was meek. He compared gay marriage to the 9/11 nightmare. I watched the Twitter feed a couple of hours before the final vote and, I’m not exaggerating, the opposition, who were mostly Democrats, sounded like the Tony Perkins X 19. It was uuuuuug-ly.

Jim Burroway
November 7th, 2013 | LINK

I think autocorrect got away from me. I know how to spell champagne because a little French voice takes over in my head and pronounces it as I type it, and he doesn’t make it rhyme with campaign (or Champaign). But my bad typing must have opened the door for autocorrect to step in and quietly make its change without my noticing. I hate autocorrect.

Ray
November 7th, 2013 | LINK

Here, here, Jim! The mortification of autocorrect.

Bose in St. Peter MN
November 7th, 2013 | LINK

Words fail me. But they certainly won’t fail the Fischers, Browns, LaBarberas etc. who will now name her as their best friend, regardless of her wishes or likely pending walk-backs.

Mark F.
November 7th, 2013 | LINK

Can we set aside the notion that only Republicans are bad guys? I recall very clearly the support Bill Clinton got from our community after he spit in our eye, because he was “better than the Republicans.” Phooey! In any case, I have no idea WTF this woman is thinking.

Priya Lynn
November 7th, 2013 | LINK

No one said only Republicans are bad guys but more bad guys are Republicans than Democrats.

Stefano A
November 7th, 2013 | LINK

According to The Honolulu Civil Beat Jordon voted “no” because she opposed the current language of the bill after it was amended. The presumption is that she opposed the expansion of the religious exemptions based on the law enacted in Connecticut.

Lord_Byron
November 7th, 2013 | LINK

Reminds me of the tea party politician who said that if his constituents wanted he would vote to re-enact slavery. She is basically saying that because so many testified against it she has to vote no on the bill. Though if Stefano is correct I am very off.

Mark F.
November 7th, 2013 | LINK

So, she’d rather deny gay couples marriage than grant a few religious exemptions? I don’t buy her reasoning.

Priya Lynn: I do indeed know people who think all Republicans come from hell. And I have heard people argue that anti-gay Democrats should be elected just so the party has a majority. But yes, more Republicans are anti-gay than Democrats.

jpeckjr
November 7th, 2013 | LINK

Thanks for that bit, Stefano. If correct, then Rep. Jordan should say “I object to the religious exemptions language.”

What she said was: “Voting no, can’t say why, maybe wrong thing, maybe right thing, I don’t no, maybe I shouldn’t, still probably will, heard from lots of people, not in my best interest, gonna vote no anyway, can’t say why, might get in trouble.”

Jay
November 8th, 2013 | LINK

I don’t think Stefano’s explanation is correct. She wanted MORE religious exemptions, not fewer. Apparently, the real story, as explained in some Hawaiian political blogs, is that she was in some sort of alliance with Say and Oshiro who lost a leadership struggle within the Democratic Party. Say finally voted yes, leaving Say and Jordan hanging in the wind. But what a dubious distinction it is for a lesbian to vote against equal rights. Truly disgraceful. I hope her constituents vote her out of office.

razorthin
November 8th, 2013 | LINK

She should of instead said No to the Honolulu Poof she’s sporting.

That would have made no one sad.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.