Why the hail mary? (0.00 / 0)

The difference between the New York and the New Jersey situations is that New Jersey (and, for that matter, Maine and California) already has civil unions/domestic partnerships -- a fact that media coverage somehow manages to consistently ignore.  New York has nothing except an executive order and some court decisions recognizing marriages performed OUTSIDE the state.

Personally, I disagree with the marriage-or-nothing attitude.  We should be pushing for BOTH civil unions AND marriage.  What if the Senate had voted on civil unions the same day as they voted on marriage?  It certainly would have had a greater chance of passing than the marriage bill, and had it passed, we would have had immediate protections.  As it stands, I'm wondering what will happen to the state's recognition of out of state marriages now that the legislature has voted against marriage.  We could end up with nothing, and as far as I can tell there's no backup plan.

If there were a more consistent push to get civil unions recognized at the state and federal levels, I think we could make progress more quickly.  

---

by: cstarks1 @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 21:34:41 PM UTC

Well (0.00 / 0)

The logic there is the same as a prosecutor only offering the jury a murder charge instead of including a manslaughter option. The thinking is that you REALLY want gay marriage and you are actually less likely to get it if you have civil unions there too. (Hand in hand, you perceive that the benefits to having marriage as opposed to civil unions is greater than the risk carried by possibly losing both.)

That's the logic and you don't have to agree with it. A lot of the perception of which is the better approach is going to depend on what you believe the practical difference between marriage and civil unions is and what you believe is the additional likelihood you have of getting civil unions but not marriage.

Another example is Chris and HCR. Early on he [seemed to] think that the difference between HCR w/public option was significantly greater than HCR w/o public option, so much so that he was willing to take the increased likelihood that ONLY having a w/public option choice would fail entirely. As time moved on, his perception of the difference between the two narrowed and he was no longer willing to accept the greater chance of failure (or conversely he could have seen the increased chance of failure itself increase though that isn't what his writings indicate). This assumes of course that he isn't playing "37-dimensional chess" which I wouldn't put past him. ;)

---

by: EricV @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 23:06:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some other possibilities (4.00 / 1)

Duane may have lied about having the votes.  I know that you said you had reliable sources saying that some Republican votes were lined up, but without knowing details, they could have been relying on what Duane said.  He could have been bluffing in an attempt to get people to jump on a perceived bandwagon or he could have wanted to ensure a vote that would have everyone on record or he could have been desperate and wanted to have a vote hoping against hope that it might pass.

Duane may have pissed off tentative yes votes on other issues.  Were there any votes that could have been a failure to deliver on a quid pro quo deal?  Was there any acrimony on recent NY Senate votes that could have broken apart an agreement?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 21:50:13 PM UTC

Entirely possible (4.00 / 2)

On both counts, although some of the folks I know weren't relying on Duane. The 37-dimensional chess idea of perceived bandwagon, playing that game for months and months seems really odd because I bet anything any smart Senator would call his bluff on that. Playing that "it's inevitable" game really only works in certain environments and this doesn't feel like it was one. But it's possible.

One acrimony issue I can think of is Monserrate, who in addition to having primary troubles from a challenger with lots of gay support, gave a giant middle finger to the Senate leadership which is investigating disciplinary measures. There aren't many reasons you flip-flop on years and years of marriage support and it just feels like one.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 22:13:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Opinion (0.00 / 0)

whether you would have pushed the bill through even if you weren't sure you had the votes.

I was all in favor of a vote, even if it lost.  But nothing I read about suggested that the vote would be so lopsided.  I never trusted Duane's claims, because he never produced nor did I ever see any evidence of 32 votes.  But I figured if it lost it would lose by 4 or less votes.  And that would mean
it would be easy to target a relatively few people in 2010.

Now we don't really have a F**g clue who the swing voters really are, and I suspect the number of people to be targeted in 2010 is too large to conduct effective campaigns against all of them.

I'm on the fence as to whether the vote should have been held regardless.  But I see your points.  The fact that NJ is actually going to hold a vote (at least in committee) actually surprises me.  I had written it off for dead once the NY vote came down.

---

by: jpmassar @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 22:14:15 PM UTC

I would have had the vote anyway (0.00 / 0)

Personally I am doubtful we have the votes in New Jersey, but if you don't have a roll-call vote how can you know how close you really are? Who is a real friend and who isn't? Sure New York's failure didn't do us much good here, but neither did Jon Corzine's defeat -- much more on the mind of legislators I am sure -- or Maine, or Prop 8. Correspondingly the success in the Assembly vote in NY didn't cause success in the Senate. I think we need to push for votes to know where we stand.

Especially because in New Jersey we know nothing will pass in the next 4 years, with a new governor who promised a veto. The state courts already pushed in civil unions as an equivalent of marriage, and many judges will be replaced by Christie, so that I can't see too much hope there, though I suppose anything is possible.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Fri Dec 04, 2009 at 22:44:50 PM UTC

Have to disagree with you Adam (4.00 / 1)

on your perception of NYC districts.  For example, Addabbo DID promise people in his district he would vote for marriage equality and he's supported same sex rights in the past.  He even had marriage equality money coming into the campaign.  It didn't hurt him against an incumbent, so why would it hurt him now?  

Onorato's district is not one of these "Black Church" districts.  Monserrate is in the same camp as Addabbo.  Even Carl Kruger's vote is questionable from a political standpoint, especially because the chance he faces a Republican opponent is slim (with his cool 2 million sitting in the bank).

There's been an argument about Shirley Huntley's district but I still maintain that her vote is more about her own personal feelings than her district.  

I think this stuff about conservative church voters in New York City is much ado about nothing.

"Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority." -William Jennings Bryan

---

by: circlesnshadows @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 02:03:13 AM UTC

Aw shoot (0.00 / 0)

This actually belonged in the other post about marriage equality.  Sorry.

"Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority." -William Jennings Bryan

---

by: circlesnshadows @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 02:04:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

With exception of Huntley, we don't disagree at all (0.00 / 0)

My point is not that all the NYC Senators are from really conservative districts. I didn't say that. My point is to not assume they're all really liberal and say things like "Democrats from NYC". They're not.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 20:45:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Teabags (0.00 / 0)

I'd chalk it up to the Teabag factor.  Republicans are feeling defensive after NY-23 and they are clinging desperately to what base they have left.  Their political calculation is probably that they can't afford to piss off their wingnut constituency on gay issues.

---

by: global yokel @ Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 04:42:05 AM UTC

The elephant in the room (0.00 / 0)

I can't believe that in the exploration of reasons why the vote evaporated, the 2009 Election results are not even examined as a cause for weakening support for this bill.

Just as much as you warn how much this will negatively affect NJ, where is the examination of how the Maine, Kzoo and WA results affected NY?

It has to at least be posited that the rejection of Marriage in Maine, with the approval of DP in WA, makes state level thinking reason that standing for marriage is currently astray from the will of constituents.

Yes, it's clear that people backed away from their commitments.  However, the ground shifted underneath them between when they made those commitments and when they were expected to honor them.

---

by: joshalot @ Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 05:33:02 AM UTC