It's
even harder to buy the claim that allowing same-sex marriage will
expose public school students to graphic depictions of homosexual
sexual practices. Mmmm, they aren't being exposed to graphic
depictions of heterosexual sexual practices, are they?
And it's
really hard to see how state Sen. Ron Kouchi, elected to represent
the entire island of Kauai, can justify his opposition to same-sex marriage by saying he's "invoking my constitutional rights to express my freedom of religion."
Yes, Ron
has the right to express his religious freedom in terms of where he chooses to
worship on his down time. But when he's in the Legislature, he needs
to set his religious beliefs aside and consider the interests of all
Kauai, not just the beliefs and doctrine of his church.
Because last time I looked, the Lege was a secular body.
Legislators
also will be considering a number of Gov. Abercrombie's proposed
appointees, including developer Shawn Smith as the Kauai representative to a term on the Board of Land and Natural Resources that runs through 2016.
As I've
previously reported, Shawn is part of Kahuaina Plantation, the uber
upscale gentleman's estates at Waipake being passed off as an “agricultural subdivision.” And we're supposed to believe he'll
be a conscientious caretaker of the state's natural resources?
Abercrombie
is also asking the Lege to approve Genevieve Salmonson as director of
the Office of Environmental Quality Control. Gary Hooser held the
post prior to his election to the Kauai County Council. As The Hawaii Independent reports:
Salmonson
previously held this position under the Lingle administration, during
which time she controversially agreed that the Superferry project was
exempt from having to provide the State with an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), leading to a long and bitter fight between the State
and environmental groups that eventually ended in 2009 when the
Supreme Court ruled that the law allowing the Superferry to operate
without an EIS was unconstitutional.
In other
news, for the first time ever a majority of Americans favor legalizing marijuana. A Gallup poll shows 58 percent support — up 10 points in
just the last year and a whopping 46 points since 1969. Americans 65
and older are the only age group that still opposes legalizing
marijuana, while 67% of Americans aged 18 to 29 back legalization.
We need to seriously consider legalization and decriminalization because
let's face it: the war on drugs has utterly failed. Or as Esquire reports:
Not only
are drugs way purer than ever, they're also way, way cheaper. Coke is
on an 80 percent discount from 1990, heroin 81 percent, cannabis 86
percent. After a trillion dollars spent on the drug war, now is the
greatest time in history to get high.
Both the
legal and illegal alteration of consciousness is at an all-time high.
In 2010
the CDC found that 48 percent of Americans used prescription drugs,
31 percent were taking two or more, and 11 percent were taking five
or more. Two of the most common prescription drugs were
stimulants, for adolescents, and anti-depressants, for middle-aged
Americans.
And
finally, I urge anyone who loves the ocean and cares about the planet
to read “the ocean is broken,” a haunting article in the
Newcastle Herald. A friend described it as an “astonishingly
captivating piece” recounting the shocking change in ocean
conditions that Newcastle yachtsman Ivan Macfadyen encountered while
recently sailing the same same course from Melbourne to Osaka that
he'd taken 10 years earlier:
It was
the silence that made this voyage different from all of those before
it.
No fish.
No birds. Hardly a sign of life at all.
Spooky, scary and sad.
Posts
22 comments:
Here's the absurd analogy but it makes the point: If the majority of Hawaii or any other state wanted their representative to legalize slavery, bestiality, murder, etc. does the representative have an obligation to listen and vote in favor simply because his constinuency wants him to? At what point can his moral compass guide his decision where he stands against even the wishes of the majority? It's not as simple as saying same-sex marriage doesn't cause harm. It comes down to what your core beliefs are based on. If they're relative, I guess anything goes as long as the majority agrees. If they are founded in the Bible and are absolute despite the majority movement then one would have to stand firm in the face of severe criticism. I applaud Ron for standing firm in what he believes deep in his heart. That is courage and is to be commended. There is too much relativism in today's society. We're back to the late '60s / early '70s slogan, "If it feels good, do it". That is a dangerous place for our society to be. Think of Lincoln standing firm in the face of adversity as he fought to eradicate slavery. Think of the many that fought for a woman's right to vote.
Let's get Ron's e-mail address and flood his mailbox about representing us not his religious beliefs.
does the representative have an obligation to listen and vote in favor simply because his constituency wants him to?
i would say 'yes'......was'nt he put in place to represent the will of the people?
or to be our moral guide thru life as he believes it should be? like, "i will lead my flock to where i think they should be, even if they dont want to be there" ?
i have no opinion on gay marriage being law, but i do have an issue when those in power that make rules "for the good of the people" even if the majority may not agree, take it upon themselves to dictate their personal agenda on his flock. aloha Dean
senkouchi@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Just put on red shirts, barge in to the Capitol, and terrorize them until you get your way. It's the new way to achieve democracy.
As the Da Judge always says,
Elect better people.
October 25, 2013 at 1:38 PM:
I think it is great to see people get involved in politics……I do resent politicians voting a certain way due to intimidation.
If they don't allow same sex marriage, then heterosexual couples should be stripped of their marital status being recognized by the gov't for tax and medical purposes. That way everyone's treated equally.
Who cares about who marries WHOM? You should care about who marries YOU..
If freedom was not just a slogan people would be free to marry whomever they want and the rent their houses to whoever they want and to take whatever drugs they want and to hire prostitutes if they both want and to gamble if they want.
Ron Kouchi is misunderstanding the willingness of the legislative leadership to allow individual legislators the "freedom" to vote their "conscience," their DISTRICT, or, for that matter, their prejudice. Just because they do have that "freedom," does not mean he should try to elevate that to some high-faulting "freedom of religion."
All religions reflect competing values and those who seek justifications for base, dark emotions and policies, can usually find scripture to support their pre-disposition. But those seeking to expand equality, work for peace and universal brotherhood/sisterhood, can also find scripture in all religions in support of those aims.
Kouchi chooses to attach himself to the regressive scriptures rather than the progressive. He has the freedom to be prejudiced. But it is a sad joke he confuses that with "religious freedom."
A few people getting married will do little to impact your life. The big Ag Condos have changed Kauai forever.
Less access, fewer beaches, less land to be developed for the regular people and more elitist residents...If you want to feel like a fish out of water (or a criminal), go to Kalihiwai Ridge, Aliomanu, Papaa Bay, Kilauea Ag CPRs.....yep, that will be Kauai, if you are a local, bring your lawnmower and cut the grass or else stay away.
Marriage equality is one of EQUALITY!
Why do people care who other people love?
"The ocean is broken" is sad and scary. But thank God it's only anecdotal and we need proof, right?
Everything in that article HAS been scientifically documented. Where you been?
Why try to cram same-sex marriage through in this manner? Let the people vote on it. Let the majority speak their consciences on a this and other highly controversial topics by voting themselves in the privacy of the voting booth. Derek, Dee, Jimmy, Ron? I'm sure you see the wisdom in that? The current method is wrong for such a controversial subject.
Yeah sure...I'm sure they would have ended segregation if it were put to a vote right?
Because "the people" don't get to vote on each other's civil rights
The citizens are not informed enough to vote on this marriage issue. This is very important. It will benefit all of us if the State will give rights based on chosen behavior. In the past rights were given because of how you were born, not by activity.
So, if I say "let Ron/Jimmy/Derek/Dee vote their conscience" you attack the argument as saying they should vote the will of the people. If I say "let the people vote" (which is, by the way, the will of the people) you say "the citizens are not informed enough" or conclude that segregation wouldn't have ended if left to the people. You can't have it both ways. This is a highly controversial issue and the people who have to live with the consequences (pass or not) should be given the right to vote on this. Sounds like proponents want a guaranteed passage. Damn whatever anyone else thinks. Ron/Derek/Dee/Jimmy - don't let this process be hijacked by impatience. This has far-reaching consequences that must be considered. Consider the people who want their say in a private voting booth.
Just say NO to Shawn Smith! He's got all his ex Police buddy's Barriga double dipping for him & M Gordon the two ex internal affairs guys that shamed the PD. Just say No to S Smith!
Post a Comment