Hawaii Republican State Senate Candidate Supports Execution Of Gays

[NATO AIR]

whoa, this is what i'm talking about with homophobes... this guy is nuts and should be trounced in the polls, but sadly he will probably win with this kind of rhetoric

i voted bush and support a good number of republican legislative efforts as of late, but this is why i can't pledge allegiance to the republican party. bush is great, but some of the people who support him scare the HELL out of me (the dems got their wackos too but i take exception to idiots like this who preach murder and hate)

http://scottmaui.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/25/5445/1320

 

[no1tovote4]

whoa, this is what i'm talking about with homophobes... this guy is nuts and should be trounced in the polls, but sadly he will probably win with this kind of rhetoric

i voted bush and support a good number of republican legislative efforts as of late, but this is why i can't pledge allegiance to the republican party. bush is great, but some of the people who support him scare the HELL out of me (the dems got their wackos too but i take exception to idiots like this who preach murder and hate)

http://scottmaui.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/25/5445/1320

Do Republicans really want to claim this guy belongs to their Party?

 

[NATO AIR]

Do Republicans really want to claim this guy belongs to their Party?

if i were a major republican leader like bill frist or john warner, i would call this guy out and tell him to quit shaming the party and president. what a jag-off

 

[dmp]

wha??

No, no no no...

that's not what he said.

He was speaking about the 300,xxx people who have 'suffered the death penalty as a result of homosexual activity' then he asked 'would you support that?" - he said something very close to 'well, that is the law of the land'...

Not even CLOSE to 'Everyone found in homosexual acts should be executed'.

Use common sense and reason when viewing such baited, biased material.

 

[NATO AIR]

wha??

No, no no no...

that's not what he said.

He was speaking about the 300,xxx people who have 'suffered the death penalty as a result of homosexual activity' then he asked 'would you support that?" - he said something very close to 'well, that is the law of the land'...

Not even CLOSE to 'Everyone found in homosexual acts should be executed'.

Use common sense and reason when viewing such baited, biased material.

come on

that sounds too much a cop-out like "I was just following orders"
or "hey i don't like that terrible law, but i don't want to speak up and do something about it, that's too hard, i'll just let it stand and hurt people"

After explaining his creationist views of history's timeline and how gays don't actually exist, Finberg was asked: "If there was a law that supported the execution of people found guilty of performing homosexual acts, would you support that law?"

After stating "Unfortunately, nearly 300,000 Americans have suffered the death penalty as a result of homosexual activity," Finberg answered, "Yes, if it were the law of the land. Yes."

he plainly answers, yes i would support a law that supported the execution of people found guilty of performing homosexual acts.

give me 100 other politicians, democrat or republican, and 98 of the 100 would say hell no.

congress/state legislatures aren't the military, you're allowed to be disobedient and oppose something you think is wrong (and hell even in the military there are avenues and routes you can take to oppose something you think is wrong, like an unlawful order or a dangerous direction)

basically, what you're really telling me is he lacks the moral courage to say or do the right thing. that ain't what i or most people would want in a politician/leader.

i hope he loses in a landslide, his buddy alan keyes is about to do so in illinois with divisive, heinious views and positions like this

 

[Avatar4321]

come on

that sounds too much a cop-out like "I was just following orders"
or "hey i don't like that terrible law, but i don't want to speak up and do something about it, that's too hard, i'll just let it stand and hurt people"



he plainly answers, yes i would support a law that supported the execution of people found guilty of performing homosexual acts.

give me 100 other politicians, democrat or republican, and 98 of the 100 would say hell no.

congress/state legislatures aren't the military, you're allowed to be disobedient and oppose something you think is wrong (and hell even in the military there are avenues and routes you can take to oppose something you think is wrong, like an unlawful order or a dangerous direction)

basically, what you're really telling me is he lacks the moral courage to say or do the right thing. that ain't what i or most people would want in a politician/leader.

i hope he loses in a landslide, his buddy alan keyes is about to do so in illinois with divisive, heinious views and positions like this

You guys are trying to spin this big time. Any politician must follow the laws of the land. As he clearly said. If thats the law then yes he will follow it. The issue isnt whether gays should be executed but rather if he would follow the laws of the land even if he disagrees with them as is required by the Constitution.

 

[NATO AIR]

You guys are trying to spin this big time. Any politician must follow the laws of the land. As he clearly said. If thats the law then yes he will follow it. The issue isnt whether gays should be executed but rather if he would follow the laws of the land even if he disagrees with them as is required by the Constitution.

i know plenty of politicians who don't follow the laws of the land if they disagree with them on a moral basis. they protest them, assist folks trying to bring the law before the supreme court, etc etc. what the hell do you think all the people back in the 50's and 60's did in the civil rights movement? if politicians and others had "followed the law" blacks would still be second class citizens. if abolitionists had followed the "law" there never would have been an underground railroad.

basically, you are allowed to oppose and work against unjust laws. the day americans stop doing that is a horrible day and the day we become just like europe or china.

 

[dmp]

come on

that sounds too much a cop-out like "I was just following orders"
or "hey i don't like that terrible law, but i don't want to speak up and do something about it, that's too hard, i'll just let it stand and hurt people"



he plainly answers, yes i would support a law that supported the execution of people found guilty of performing homosexual acts.

give me 100 other politicians, democrat or republican, and 98 of the 100 would say hell no.

congress/state legislatures aren't the military, you're allowed to be disobedient and oppose something you think is wrong (and hell even in the military there are avenues and routes you can take to oppose something you think is wrong, like an unlawful order or a dangerous direction)

basically, what you're really telling me is he lacks the moral courage to say or do the right thing. that ain't what i or most people would want in a politician/leader.

i hope he loses in a landslide, his buddy alan keyes is about to do so in illinois with divisive, heinious views and positions like this

Cop outs? We see a question being asked, without context. Notice it was edited to right before the question was asked. What we did NOT see may have been "If you were working as an executioner, and the country had a law stating all homosexuals would be put to death, and that law had been on the books for 1000 years, and was 'the norm', and everyone enjoyed the law, and we had implants which controlled our thoughts to support the law, would you support the law?"

What we have is a video used to illicit emotional response, and push down 'reason'.

 

[Avatar4321]

i know plenty of politicians who don't follow the laws of the land if they disagree with them on a moral basis. they protest them, assist folks trying to bring the law before the supreme court, etc etc. what the hell do you think all the people back in the 50's and 60's did in the civil rights movement? if politicians and others had "followed the law" blacks would still be second class citizens. if abolitionists had followed the "law" there never would have been an underground railroad.

basically, you are allowed to oppose and work against unjust laws. the day americans stop doing that is a horrible day and the day we become just like europe or china.

You can oppose unjust laws all you want. But you cant disobey them because you feel like it, you have to follow the legal method of changing them. If any politician can disobey the laws of the land for moral reasons i think its time we see them crack down on abortion.

 

[dmp]

i know plenty of politicians who don't follow the laws of the land if they disagree with them on a moral basis. they protest them, assist folks trying to bring the law before the supreme court, etc etc. what the hell do you think all the people back in the 50's and 60's did in the civil rights movement? if politicians and others had "followed the law" blacks would still be second class citizens. if abolitionists had followed the "law" there never would have been an underground railroad.

basically, you are allowed to oppose and work against unjust laws. the day americans stop doing that is a horrible day and the day we become just like europe or china.

? Do you feel the Mayor of SF was 'right' in issuing gay couples marriage licenses? That was 'against the law' - when that mayor took office he vowed to 'uphold the law'.

When public servicemen and women take office - and even in the military, they vow to uphold the laws and lawful orders of those appointed over them. EVEN IF THEY DO NOT AGREE.

If the 'law' stated homosexuals caught in the act were to be executed, he'd have no choice. He wasn't asked if he'd try to CHANGE the law.

That interview was bullshit. Pure crap. It was an attack on the man - and ambush.


I am SO happy the majority of americans do NOT support special rights for homosexuals.

 

[no1tovote4]

You guys are trying to spin this big time. Any politician must follow the laws of the land. As he clearly said. If thats the law then yes he will follow it. The issue isnt whether gays should be executed but rather if he would follow the laws of the land even if he disagrees with them as is required by the Constitution.

There is a good thing that there is such a thing as Jury Nullification. If all of our politicians would support such a law rather than attempt to change it we would need something like that.

I would prefer somebody with the moral character to say, "No." and the knowledge that as part of the legislature they can actually do something about it.

Personally I would not support the law, would work to change it, and would realize that since I am not part of the executive branch it is not my "constitutional duty" to support such incorrect legislation, that would be the DA's job. I would thank my lucky stars I had the foresight and knowledge that allowed me to work to stop what I believe is an atrocity rather than being forced by position to support the law.

 

[NATO AIR]

? Do you feel the Mayor of SF was 'right' in issuing gay couples marriage licenses? That was 'against the law' - when that mayor took office he vowed to 'uphold the law'.

i don't agree with what he did, but he had the right. the california supreme court took him down a notch for it too. there's a process for these things, and the process/rule of law won.

When public servicemen and women take office - and even in the military, they vow to uphold the laws and lawful orders of those appointed over them. EVEN IF THEY DO NOT AGREE.

If servicemen and women feel the law or order is unjust, they are allowed avenues within the chain of command, sometimes before, sometimes after, to voice their issue with the order. this just happened yesterday on a shore patrol incident last night. i saw an unjust, dangerous order refused by two MP's who then took the matter to the base CO, who told the officer who gave them the order he was flat out wrong. I've refused orders in the past by idiots above me who didn't know what they were doing and almost got people in a lot of trouble, seriously hurt or even killed, and I got nailed for it once, but backed up by higher authority the other twenty eight times.

elected represenatives can also do the same thing. in the civilian world, the courts are the higher authority. lots of unjust or unlawful laws every year get knocked down by lower courts and the supreme court.

If the 'law' stated homosexuals caught in the act were to be executed, he'd have no choice. He wasn't asked if he'd try to CHANGE the law.

he didn't need to be asked. any reasonable person would have said hell no i wouldn't follow the law. we don't elect our leaders to follow laws, we elect them to do the right thing. democracy ain't perfect, and our leaders don't blindly follow, they LEAD.

That interview was bullshit. Pure crap. It was an attack on the man - and ambush.

if he isn't a good interview, his handlers shouldn't have put him on the show. george bush got plenty of nasty interviews on several trips he's made to europe, from some of the best ambushers in the business over there, and he came out fine. he stuck to his line, said what he felt was right, and did what he had to do. if your boy can't play in the big leagues, boo-hoo for him. go cry to mama.

I am SO happy the majority of americans do NOT support special rights for homosexuals.

there is nothing in this article or any of the posts on here about special rights for homosexuals. i am SO happy you prove yourself to be a cheap opportunist willing to hijack a thread about a politician not doing the right thing and turn it into a "homos want special rights" argument with no evidence in any of the information posted here to back it up.

 

[dmp]

i don't agree with what he did, but he had the right. the california supreme court took him down a notch for it too. there's a process for these things, and the process/rule of law won.

You make my case...and the case of those who see this interview for what it is...nothing but an attempt at hysteria, and an attack on Christianity.

If servicemen and women feel the law or order is unjust, they are allowed avenues within the chain of command, sometimes before, sometimes after, to voice their issue with the order. this just happened yesterday on a shore patrol incident last night. i saw an unjust, dangerous order refused by two MP's who then took the matter to the base CO, who told the officer who gave them the order he was flat out wrong. I've refused orders in the past by idiots above me who didn't know what they were doing and almost got people in a lot of trouble, seriously hurt or even killed, and I got nailed for it once, but backed up by higher authority the other twenty eight times.

We are bound to obey the lawful orders - if we disobey, we had better be SURE the order is lawful. FWIW, you can't 'refuse to obey the orders of MPs' because MP's don't issue orders in the sense they are appointed over you. They issue direction, much like a police officer.

if he isn't a good interview, his handlers shouldn't have put him on the show. george bush got plenty of nasty interviews on several trips he's made to europe, from some of the best ambushers in the business over there, and he came out fine. he stuck to his line, said what he felt was right, and did what he had to do. if your boy can't play in the big leagues, boo-hoo for him. go cry to mama.

So...it's the fault of the GUEST that the interviewer ambushed him, and edited the situation painting him in the worst possible light....I get it.

i am SO happy you prove yourself to be a cheap opportunist willing to hijack a thread about a politician not doing the right thing and turn it into a "homos want special rights" argument with no evidence in any of the information posted here to back it up.

What i said was in context of the guy in SF...how he violated laws with his actions. It was also to show that the 'majority rules' - thus, if the majority of americans wanted homosexuals killed, our laws would indicate such policy. Even if a 'lot' of people dissagreed.

No need to get personal...or start insulting me. I haven't insulted you...

 

[no1tovote4]

It seems that everybody keeps ignoring the fact that it is the job of the Legislature to write laws, not to support the ones that are on the books. This man knows that and is part of the legislature.

A person in the legislature that "supports" a law is saying he believes the law is right and that we should not work through new legislation to change the law.

Simply saying "if it was the law of the land" is a cop-out.

Now if a person were the AG or a DA, then yes they have to support the law regardless of their views on the right or wrong of the law. They are the ones that uphold the laws passed by the legislature it is their job to support the law.

 

[NATO AIR]

You make my case...and the case of those who see this interview for what it is...nothing but an attempt at hysteria, and an attack on Christianity.

your opinion. i saw a poor interview but a very poor answer. i doubt the forces that be behind the interview had a grand attack on Christianity and morality in their designs.

We are bound to obey the lawful orders - if we disobey, we had better be SURE the order is lawful. FWIW, you can't 'refuse to obey the orders of MPs' because MP's don't issue orders in the sense they are appointed over you. They issue direction, much like a police officer.

misunderstanding. the assigned shore patrol officer ordered Master At Arms (NAVY MPs) to restrain-choke a drunken sailor. they refused, the officer had previously ordered two shipboard sailors to do so and they deferred on the basis they did not have the training for such a potentially dangerous procedure. the MA's disobeyed what they felt was an unlawful order, as I have done on numerous occasions when I was damn sure in my gut an order was wrong. its our responsibility both in the military and in the civilian world to do the right thing and follow "lawful" orders.

So...it's the fault of the GUEST that the interviewer ambushed him, and edited the situation painting him in the worst possible light....I get it.

are you a dukakis fan or something? remember he blamed bernard king for asking an awful question about someone raping his wife, AFTER he gave a terribly poor, cowardly answer. Real leaders/politicians know to call the interviewer's poor question out for being bad, or spin the question into something else (preferably something positive about themselves or their platform). editing happens all the time, its the nature of the "soundbyte" media we watch. as a politician, you learn how to handle it and counter it.

What i said was in context of the guy in SF...how he violated laws with his actions. It was also to show that the 'majority rules' - thus, if the majority of americans wanted homosexuals killed, our laws would indicate such policy. Even if a 'lot' of people dissagreed.

we are not a majority rules society. if we were a majority society, al gore would be president based on winning the popular vote in 2000. if we were a majority society, segregation would still be in effect. if we were a majority society, we would continue to have unjust or bad laws.

we are a nation of just laws. we have a supreme court and a system of courts that makes sure these laws are just and lawful. if congress and some extremist president passed a law rounding up all arabs and putting them in an internment camp, would you support it? it takes moral courage to stand up to unjust laws, and a spirited defense/love of the constitution to get them overturned.

No need to get personal...or start insulting me. I haven't insulted you...

eh, i'm posting about an idiot who just advocated the unjust slaughter of americans because (a) he really doesn't know what the hell he is doing and is in way over his head and thus doesn't need to be in politics or (b) he actually likes the idea. you post about immorality on the part of the said americans. excuse me, but how am i not supposed to be insulted in maybe just a slight way?
for the record, i am not "getting personal". i am directing a comment towards your actions in THIS thread. it doesn't mean i don't like/respect you or won't ever want to support a future argument of yours or debate with you. maybe its my mistake in too strongly wording things.

 

[dmp]

eh, i'm posting about an idiot who just advocated the unjust slaughter of americans because (a) he really doesn't know what the hell he is doing and is in way over his head and thus doesn't need to be in politics or (b) he actually likes the idea. you post about immorality on the part of the said americans. excuse me, but how am i not supposed to be insulted in maybe just a slight way?
for the record, i am not "getting personal". i am directing a comment towards your actions in THIS thread. it doesn't mean i don't like/respect you or won't ever want to support a future argument of yours or debate with you. maybe its my mistake in too strongly wording things.

He did no such thing; You don't know the context of the question. You are relying on a completely biased version of the conversation - and one we can't be clear about. Was he answering the question 'should gays be killed' or, based on the answer he started to say, it COULD be he was saying 'are gays being executed'....because he clearly was saying 'homosexuals have been 'executed' as a result of their activies in this country for years...via AIDS, etc..'

I beleived you to be 'reasonable' but you are not looking at this interview with any objectivity. You want the guy to say "All homos should be put to death' thus, nothing anyone can tell you will convince you that is 'not' what he was 'saying'.

 

[Merlin1047]

whoa, this is what i'm talking about with homophobes... this guy is nuts and should be trounced in the polls, but sadly he will probably win with this kind of rhetoric

i voted bush and support a good number of republican legislative efforts as of late, but this is why i can't pledge allegiance to the republican party. bush is great, but some of the people who support him scare the HELL out of me (the dems got their wackos too but i take exception to idiots like this who preach murder and hate)

http://scottmaui.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/25/5445/1320

Hmmmm - my antennae go up whenever I hear something so totally outrageous. I couldn't get the links to the video in the article to work, so I thought I'd see what I could chase down on my own. I researched several Hawaiian newspapers and found no reference.

Then I searched the website of the Sen J. Kalani English, the Democratic opponent. Also no mention of such a comment. I would think that had such an outrageous statement been made, Sen English would be on it like a frog on a junebug.

Not saying it didn't happen, but I can't find any corroboration anywhere.

Here's where I've looked:


http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=1075

http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=1457

http://www.mauisfreepress.com/index.html

http://starbulletin.com/2001/10/17/news/story6.html

http://www.aloha.net/~jkalani/

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/senmaj/members/2004/english.htm

http://www.kalanienglish.com/news_mauinews_040815.html

http://www.kalanienglish.com/

 

[no1tovote4]

Hmmmm - my antennae go up whenever I hear something so totally outrageous. I couldn't get the links to the video in the article to work, so I thought I'd see what I could chase down on my own. I researched several Hawaiian newspapers and found no reference.

Then I searched the website of the Sen J. Kalani English, the Democratic opponent. Also no mention of such a comment. I would think that had such an outrageous statement been made, Sen English would be on it like a frog on a junebug.

Not saying it didn't happen, but I can't find any corroboration anywhere.

If you go to the link in the first post, there is a link to the video.

 

[Merlin1047]

If you go to the link in the first post, there is a link to the video.

I found that. It doesn't work. I think my net server blocks it.

 

[Merlin1047]

whoa, this is what i'm talking about with homophobes... this guy is nuts and should be trounced in the polls, but sadly he will probably win with this kind of rhetoric

i voted bush and support a good number of republican legislative efforts as of late, but this is why i can't pledge allegiance to the republican party. bush is great, but some of the people who support him scare the HELL out of me (the dems got their wackos too but i take exception to idiots like this who preach murder and hate)

http://scottmaui.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/25/5445/1320

Okay, I'm finally starting to decipher this. Apparently Finberg, a candidate for the Senate stated that he agreed with Mike Gabbard, founder and chair of the Alliance for Traditional Marriage. Gabbard has apparently aroused the ire of Hawaiian homosexuals by stating the philosphy that "Homosexuality is unnatural, as well as morally and spiritually repugnant".

Although I have been unable to view the video, I get the distinct impression that this was a set-up of some sort. So it appears that a bit of skepticism is in order.

As for those who posted that they would support the execution of homosexuals if that were the law of the land - I have to say "shame on you". Conservatives should be in the forefront of any effort to resist abusive government. Conservatives should possess a better set of ethics, principles and morals than your average secular liberal. Conservatives should not be availing themselves of the morally bankrupt excuse that "I was just following orders". I personally would NEVER obey a law of this nature, no matter what the consequences and that's what Finberg should have said.

But to put this into perspective, here's the pro-homosexual attack which is probably at the root of all this:
http://www.honoluluweekly.com/archives/coverstory 1999/01-27-99 Gabbard/01-27-99 Gabbard.html