Anyone who follows politics closely enough or for a long enough period of time has, at one point or another, been convinced that our nation’s leaders just don’t get it. Of course it doesn’t have to be April 1 for American politicians to pull stunts so outrageous we’re left asking if they’re for real.

Look back over the past few months alone and we were treated to a political stage on which the president mocked Special Olympics athletes on national television and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley suggested that the nation’s financial leaders kill themselves, along with countless antics from fallen Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (the guy compared his arrest to the attack on Pearl Harbor), to say nothing of former President George W. Bush’s eight-year stint.

Through the parodied lenses of news satirists like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, your typical political gaffe is shocking but also funny—and an important reminder that we can’t afford to tune out our political leadership no matter how sick of them we become. But dismissing American leaders as ridiculous or funny too often allows us to dismiss them completely when, at times, it’s essential that we remember their slip-ups. Enter: Honolulu City Councilmember Gary Okino.

Six weeks ago, Okino stood before the Hawaii Senate Judiciary Committee and rambled off a string of discrimination and misinformation so potent that even lawmakers had to ask him multiple times for clarification. Here’s how it went down: Okino showed up at a committee hearing at the State Capitol to testify against House Bill 444, a proposal to legalize civil unions between same-sex couples that has since all but died after the state Senate’s failure to call it out of committee last week (which provides yet another list of names and related political missteps not to be forgotten come election time).

In making his case, Okino described homosexuality as a perversion and detailed “the medical dangers of a homosexual lifestyle,” erroneously claiming that the incidence of AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases occur “almost exclusively in the homosexual population.” He went on to explain that he was testifying not out of hate for the gay population, but from a desire to protect them from themselves. He called the idea of giving the gay population “equivalence” or “legal standing” a “danger to the community.”

Okino’s testimony included everything from blatantly false medical claims and factually wrong assertions about the consequences of legalizing gay marriage in Massachusetts to the conclusion that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality because “parts fit.” Plenty of Honolulu citizens were outraged and embarrassed to hear such discriminatory nonsense from an official who represents them, but the most disturbing parts of the councilmember’s display (and there were plenty to choose from) came when he said that, when it comes to his professional conduct, the Bible trumps the Constitution every time.

Here’s the exchange that took place:

Senator Clarence Nishihara: When you sit as a councilman, do you take what is written in the Bible first for how you vote on issues?

Okino: Yes

Nishihara: So regardless of whether or not it follows the law, you would go with the Bible?

Okino: Yes

Okino’s admission to favoring a religious text over the Constitution left many heads spinning. For starters, Okino admitted to a professional decision-making process that negates the following oath, from section 13-118 of our city charter, which he took upon joining the Council:

“I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully support the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, the Constitution and laws of the State of Hawaii and the Charter and laws of the City and County of Honolulu, and conscientiously and impartially discharge my duties as ________ of the City and County of Honolulu.”

But as infuriating as it is that Okino admitted to putting his personal beliefs before the promise he made to the people of Honolulu, what does it mean for those of us who have to live with his political influence?

“Of course the First Amendment says there cannot be an establishment of religion,” said Jon Van Dyke, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. “On the other hand, of course, everyone is entitled to their personal creed and Mr. Okino and other public officials are entitled of course to base their activities on their values…the same First Amendment that says there cannot be an establishment of religion also guarantees to all of us the right to believe what we want to believe. So sometimes there is tension between the free exercise of religion on one hand and the prohibition of establishment of religion on the other hand.”

So while the Constitution that Okino puts on a back-burner to the Bible protects him, the onus falls on voters to remember what he and other politicians have said and done over the course of their time in office.

“Put it this way,” said Van Dyke, “Take the example that the Constitution says there can’t be any cruel or unusual punishment. If a public official says, ‘I am in favor of torturing people,’ we would say that that’s inconsistent with the amendment. So I certainly wouldn’t vote for such a person but on the other hand, the First Amendment allows people to say things, even outrageous things.”

With each new Daily Show comes another slew of unbelievable political quotes. As one gaffe replaces the next, it can be easy to forget what one Senator did three months ago or what another City Councilmember said last winter. Holding politicians accountable requires us not only to listen to them and identify the occasions in which they are being unreasonable, but also to remember the things they say, the positions they take and the priorities they list.

When we find ourselves thinking, “he can’t be serious,” we have to also remind ourselves that if we vote for that person again, the joke is on us.

---