Last month I wrote about a few updates on efforts to target and defeat those who voted against marriage equality in the New York State Senate. There was good news on one of the fronts last night. Hiram Monserrate, infamous for slashing his girlfriend's face, and for being indicted and convicted for assault, and for voting against marriage equality after literally years of support dating back to his time on the NYC Council, was expelled from the New York State Senate in a 53-8 vote by his colleagues. His lawyer is expected to challenge the effort in court, but for now, Gov. Paterson has called a special election for March 16th. Monserrate is expected to run in the special, but his challenger is Assemblyman Jose Peralta, a strong friend of the LGBT community who voted for marriage equality in the Assembly and has the support of Empire State Pride Agenda. He also has outraised Monserrate and doesn't have the, um, criminal record that Monserrate does.
A friend and LGBT activist with the Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club of Queens and the Stonewall Democratic Club of NYC e-mailed the following commentary on the race:
The 13th Senate District is gathering around the candidacy of Jose Peralta, a very popular state assemblyman who is running for the Senate and received the Democratic Party endorsement within days of the conviction of Monserrate. Jose has huge support among LGBT people in Queens and helped Danny Dromm become the first gay elected councilman from Queens. Jose has the support of women, liberals, lgbt, many immigrants, including the large South Asian community, and unions. Monserate has Latino men between the ages of 18-50. LGBT community expects to hit the streets in force and will outnumber any of the support Monserrate can throw together.
If you live in the district or are interested in supporting Peralta, here's his site.
Also, thanks to those of you who signed the now-successful Fire Monserrate petition, and to its organizers.
In one of the first moves to take down some of the NYS Senators who voted against marriage equality, Assemblyman Peralta, who voted three times in favor of marriage equality in the Assembly and has a solid LGBT record, was today endorsed by Empire State Pride Agenda in his primary race against convicted Sen. Hiram Monserrate.
"Civil rights for all of my constituents and for all New Yorkers has always been a priority for me," said Assemblyman José Peralta. "I have worked towards full equality for LGBT New Yorkers in my seven years as an Assemblymember, and I will be proud to continue this work as a member of the State Senate. I think my record in the Assembly demonstrates that when I take a principled stand on an important human rights issue like marriage equality, I don't suddenly change my mind when the bill comes up for a vote."
Monserrate flip-flopped on years of support for marriage equality (in my view, as a big middle finger to the Senate Dem leadership, which is considering disciplinary action against him, but likely for some electoral reasons). Peralta has also already been endorsed by the Queens County Democratic Party and Rep. Joe Crowley. Monserrate is in deep, deep trouble next year.
Liz Benjamin is reporting that Tony Avella, a NYC City Councilman who is leaving office at the end of this year, and lost a primary to Thompson for Mayor, is considering running against Republican Senator Frank Padavan, a no vote on marriage equality. Padavan lost a very tight, recounted race in 2008 for his seat and is a big Republican target. Avella is very much in support of marriage equality and said he would have been a yes vote on the bill. He is also very respected for his work on zoning issues while on the City Council, and was endorsed for his Council races by the labor-backed Working Families Party. While, as we have witnessed, people can go back on their support for marriage equality, that is promising.
The reason I'm pointing this out is because, as I talked about last week, there is been an emerging "primary them all!" theme with regard to the eight Democrats who voted against marriage equality as the solution that will solve all our problems. There are a number on that list who are very likely to still retain their seats. With a target like Aubertine's, his seat is one we are not likely to get back. My point here is that all of this anger over the eight Democrats ignores that there is a target-rich environment among Republicans. Padavan is one. It's important to target district-by-district, not party by party.
There are a few interesting questions I have in my head to keep in mind for future votes.
1. Vote-counting. As I documented in my piece on Wednesday, Sen. Duane, the lead sponsor and vote-counter, said repeatedly for months that he had the votes and we'll be fine. His comments after the vote indicated that he had been betrayed and lied to- something I believe myself.
My question is how you can say for months that you have the votes and then lose so badly, even taking into account that many Republicans jumped ship once they knew the bill would fail, which was definitely part of the equation here. Keeping in mind we went into this knowing we would need Republican votes for passage, my question is what else happened here, and why Duane said he had the votes for months then they evaporated.
(b) Duane was straight-up lied to by lots of Senators
(c) Republicans made commitments to Duane to vote yes, but between the state Conservative party threatening primary challenges for Republicans who voted yes, and the NY-23 teabagger story, they were scared to death and never told him they were switching to no
(d) Skelos, the minority leader, said publicly he would let his caucus vote their conscience. This turned out to be untrue, he twisted arms, and that is something Duane did not know about or take into account
(e) Sen. Alesi, who was one of the most gettable Republicans, was #3 in the vote order and once he voted no, he became the domino that caused all the other Republicans to vote no (something he denies)
(f) The Republicans, and maybe some Democrats, DID tell Duane they were switching to no, but he didn't want the bill pulled even though he knew it would fail
(g) Duane never got firm commitments from everyone he needed, and was operating on an assumption that even if he could only get verbal commitments from some Democrats and a Republican or two, the rest of the votes he needed would fall in line anyway and we'd be set
Perhaps there's more possibilities. In truth, it's probably some of many different pieces. If it's (a), I wonder what the nature of those conversations were and why Senators think it's okay to go back on their word, on this issue, to an openly gay Senator. If it's (g), that is something to think about at a tactical level.
I have more questions than answers on this, but the more I think about this the more I realize something is not right with either the vote-counter, the model under which he was operating, or the people making the commitments to him.
2. Whether you should have a vote at all. Empire State Pride Agenda had been insisting on a vote for months with the rationale of the importance of knowing where Senators stood. There were a lot of Senators who refused to state a position. The one good thing about this is that now we know who to support and who to defeat.
On the other hand, by many accounts and my own opinion, this bill did significant damage to the chances of New Jersey passing its own law, partly because of lawmaker nervousness and partly because they share media markets (a full Senate vote there will be held on Dec. 10th). It also made headlines around the country and perhaps changed more than a few minds or hardened more than a few opinions on this. I was personally okay with losing a vote by one or two, but not getting it resoundingly defeated. Not only does that motivate the right-wing, keep their funding streams healthy and initiate another irritating series of "let's abandon marriage altogether" arguments in the LGBT community of late. It affected the public perception, too. That is a very serious risk of doing these votes when you do not have nearly the number of votes you should.
I have mixed feelings on this myself, but I am interested in your opinions on whether you would have pushed the bill through even if you weren't sure you had the votes.
I've been doing some more thinking on the outcome of the NY Senate marriage vote, and there are some important emerging themes I want to respond to. In a later piece, I will have some organizing questions I'd like your thoughts on re what to do better.
1. The "This is all the Democrats' fault" meme. I have heard this in a dozen places privately, and yesterday, Democratic Sen. Tom Duane, the openly gay lead sponsor, said this at the NYC rally to protest the vote:
"I'm angry at the betrayal of people who are supposed to be standing up for our civil rights," Duane proclaimed as the crowd cheered. "The Democrats failed us in the Senate."
I think there are two important things to differentiate here. One is the mathematics. Yes, more Democrats voting for the bill would have "given Republicans cover" to get onboard. There is near-universal agreement on this and I don't dispute it.
But the second, and thing I want to zero in on, is the political culpability, which is what I have a problem with. There cannot be straight "This is all the Democrats' fault" rhetoric coming out of this. Non-stop "Democrats suck" risks hatred for both parties, particularly for less political people who are don't get the process part of this, and that is not helpful to anyone. And we only got this far because of New York Democrats. Spitzer campaigned on a pledge to submit a marriage bill in 2006. Paterson has been one of the most public and loud voices in the state pushing for it in special session for months. He was the one who issued the executive order granting recognition to out-of-state couples. Shelly Silver, the Dem Assembly Speaker, brought it up for a vote and it passed with mostly Democratic votes in the Democratic Assembly. It would have never come up for a vote in a Republican Senate- in fact, when Republicans controlled the Senate and Bruno was Majority Leader, he refused to bring it up even after the Assembly passed it. Now that 75% of the Senate Dem Caucus voted for the bill, and 0% of the Republican Caucus did, it's suddenly time for "Democrats suck! They're all to blame!" rhetoric?
I understand the optics around how Democrats give cover to Republicans. But we would have never had a vote under Republican leadership in the first place. And there has been too much "it's all their fault!" talk and not enough about how 0 Republicans went for this bill. There are vulnerable gasbags on both sides of the aisle, and you have to tell that story for the sake of the people listening.
2. How "This is all the Democrats' fault" leads to misuse of resources. This kind of blame game makes people think the grand solution to this problem is to just channel every resource into primarying the 8 Democrats and our problems will go away. This single-minded focus is not wise.
There is a target-rich environment here. The 30 Republicans do not all come from R+26 districts. Our side has to target vulnerable Republicans and find candidates to beat them who will be with us on marriage even when 8 of their caucus colleagues are not. At the congressional level, we beat lots of Republicans in 2006 and 2008, and many of the Democrats in their place vote our way on tough votes, even when in marginal districts, and even when 30 Blue Dogs vote against. You have to go district by district, not party by party.
3. How "Democrats from New York City" should be treated. There is a lot of special anger reserved at the 6 Dems from NYC districts who voted no, because the assumption is that because they're from NYC, known as an LGBT mecca, they are monolithically pro-LGBT. I don't think that's right at all. I spoke to one NYC State Senator who voted no on the phone before the vote, who told me straight up, "Adam, I gotta tell you, African-American churches elected me to this seat, and I gotta worry about them." That pretty much tells you what is foremost on most politicians' mind.
Here in DC, Yvette Alexander and Marion Barry voted no on the marriage bill. I would never call them "Democrats from DC" and blindly expect them to be as progressive as they come. They come from Wards 7 and 8, which are 97% and 93% black, much more heavily religious, have the lowest incomes of any wards, the lowest percentage of people with college degrees of any wards. They do not exactly represent Dupont Circle or Chelsea or anything close to it, so I don't know why anyone would expect them- or NYC Dems from similar districts- to be automatically pro-marriage equality. Maybe it's those kinds of assumptions that led our leaders to think we had the votes when we didn't.
I don't excuse the NYC Dems' votes, and some of them should have voted yes, but my point is we need to think of Senators as Senators from a district, not from a giant city.
1. We lost 24-38. All 30 Republicans voted no (I wrote that Little voted yes when a colleague just off the floor said he heard her vote yes, which was mistaken). Eight out of 32 Democrats voted no.
2. Monserrate, one of the Senators who flipped control of the Senate in a coup earlier this year, and who was recently convicted on charges of slashing his girlfriend's face, voted no. He was in favor of marriage equality for years, dating back to his time on the NYC City Council. He was in favor in his run for Senate. Marriage Equality New York reported him in favor when we won the State Senate last fall. He voted no. He is already a big target.
3. We got two of the five undecided Dems I listed (Foley, Valesky). Addabbo, Huntley, Kruger voted no.
4. All of the four hard No's I reported a few weeks ago indeed turned out to be No's (Aubertine, Diaz, Onorato, Stachowski).
5. On why in the world we would have a vote only to lose by eight votes, here's Sen. Tom Duane, the openly gay lead sponsor and vote-counter, back in April:
Sen. Tom Duane, D-Manhattan, the leading advocate of same-sex marriage in the Senate, predicts passage with votes to spare. We'd settle for any margin sufficient to remove one more barrier of discrimination.
But Tom Duane, the Manhattan Democrat leading the gay marriage push in the Senate, said he's sure there will be enough votes, including some from Republican lawmakers.
With Assembly passage, Duane said "the logjam will be over."
State Senator Tom Duane of Manhattan, the openly gay, hyper-vocal proponent of marriage equality, said yesterday that he's received private assurances from at least 32 of his colleagues that they will vote in favor of a marriage-equality bill introduced by Governor Paterson and recently passed by the State Assembly. Though he wouldn't specify which senators had pledged support, he did say the list included several Republicans. "I would not want to deny them the pleasure of telling you themselves. That would just be wrong and really impolite of me to do that," he said, assuring simply: "I have the votes."
In October, following being called out by the Empire State Pride Agenda at their dinner:
So, I think there's some fear that marriage might not happen. But it is happening. We have the votes the governor is providing great leadership on it. He absolutely wants it to happen the votes are there for it to pass.
I'm not releasing my vote count until we're ready to vote. What people have told me, they've told me in confidence. It just wouldn't be appropriate for me to share that.
One way to look at this is that Duane can't count votes. Probably more accurate is that he, and the Dem leadership, were lied to en masse. I'm told by a number of reliable sources that we had commitments from several Republicans to vote yes. This felt wrong from the moment I saw not a single Republican spoke on the floor in debate, probably because there was a live video stream and no one wanted to get on tape being a homophobe. Essentially, we got punked.
Update: In Sen. Duane's statement I received over e-mail, the first paragraph hints at that:
Today's vote against Marriage Equality makes me very angry. Promises made were not honored. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, and all fair-minded New Yorkers have been betrayed. I am enraged, deeply disappointed and profoundly saddened by the vote today.
6. As a Western New York native, where my entire family still lives and where I went to college, this feels like a punch in the gut. For the second time in as many months. Losing by so many hurts even more. Earlier this month I learned I were ever to get married back home, my intended and I would become the first same-sex couple ever married at my home synagogue in Williamsville, NY. I guess it will have to wait a little while longer.
The good news is that I'm headed to NYC on Saturday for a NYS-focused online organizing conference, where many of us will be scheming on how to start knocking off as many of the Senators as we can who screwed us today. The recently-launched reBootNY, which you should sign up for if you want to do something about this, is one way. This ain't over.
Update 23: Monserrate voted no. After he supported the bill in City Council and when running for Senate. Fucker. Kruger, too, who was an undecided Dem. Elizabeth Little, a Republican, voted yes, which is great. A colleague of mine who told me this misheard.
Update 22: A "slow roll call" has been called. This is when the 2-minute announcement of positions and official votes occur. It's "slow" because you can take two minutes to explain your vote if you choose. Here we go.
Update 21: Sen. Duane, who is openly gay and the lead sponsor, is cracking jokes left and right:
"To my [undecided] colleagues, there is still time to feel my gratitude in its fullness!" Love it.
"[my partner] Lewis would be here, but who knew what day we were doing this?! How could you plan?! I know he's probably watching. Hiiii!"
"We're beating New Jersey! They may have the Jets, they may have the Giants, but we're beating New Jersey!"
"I once gave a pop quiz to a class- name 3 people you admire the most. Mothers and fathers, top vote-getters.
More serious note: "People have said to me 'now is not the time'. There's always time to be on the right side of history."
Update 20: Sen. Smith, former majority leader and now-President Pro Tempore, and a co-sponsor, is up. "Colleagues have asked me why I'm supporting marriage. When I asked back to them, why not, a good number of them would retreat to the Bible, and tell me "well, the Bible says it is wrong." What is wrong is not knowing what the Bible says and retreating to it. The Bible does not say same-sex marriage is wrong. The Bible is about fairness... what is wrong is when you quote the Bible for your own purposes. My suggestion to you, if you are Christian... is please don't quote the Bible or refer to it on what it really means." "I can vote yes because of my religion, because I can understand discrimination... when you experience discrimination, it hurts. When someone came to you... and said to you, in your face, NO, because of those reasons, it hurts, especially when you know in your heart it was the right thing to do. I have a colleague who worked for me, Shawn Thompson, my former deputy secretary. Him and his partner who are expecting twins cannot marry and complete their family. They are expecting twins! Everyone brings up religion. This is not a challenge to the church."
Also: "A win is not a debate on the floor. A win is 35 votes...(we need) to do the right thing for the people of NY."
Update 19: Sen. Stavisky went up quickly and said "I cannot stand here and oppose discrimination based on religion, race... and condone discrimination based on sexual orientation." Short and to the point.
Update 18: Sen. Oppenheimer, a co-sponsor: "Why would it diminsh my marriage? I don't understand when people say that to me." And oh boy. She's bringing out the Tikkun Olam reference. Go girl!
Update 17: Sen. Perkins, African-American and a co-sponsor- "I can see Dr. Martin Luther King looking down on us today and smiling upon us."
Update 16: General update- in terms of votes, no big surprises yet. All the people I listed below who spoke except Diaz (opposed) and Valesky are our co-sponsors, and all have confirmed they are voting yes. Valesky, a Dem from Syracuse, moved from being undecided to a Yes, which is important. No Republicans have spoken yet.
Update 15: Sen. Johnson, a co-sponsor, is up talking about how the bill simply requires a clerk to issue a license. Simple as that.
Update 14: Sen. Hassell-Thompson, a co-sponsor, talks about how her older brother is gay for the first time publicly. "First time I've said that publicly in my lifetime. His formidable talent... was not acceptable. And so he left this country and went to France. His formidable career was not something he could share with his family. I looked for my brother. My father worried but he could not ask him to come home, and so I searched consulates and embassies looking for him. Finally I got a response. He said, my father does not want to see me. I said, but your sister does, and your siblings do. And so he did come home, and made relatively frequent visits home. But he never could settle, and so he died in the south of France. And my youngest brother... went and brought his ashes home. He was not entitled to what married couples were entitled to... I am concerned about my siblings." Incredibly moving story.
Update 13: Sen. Jose M. Serrano, son of Rep. Jose Serrano and a co-sponsor, is up- "[marriage equality] will make our communities stronger. History will again prove this civil rights movement to be correct."
Update 12: Some folks have asked if the Lieutenant Governor, Dick Ravitch, can break ties. No. Only in procedural votes. We need 32 Senators, not 31 plus Ravitch.
Update 11: Sen. Montgomery, an African-American and co-sponsor, is talking about the institution of marriage as "part of the government contractual process... I want to remind people that if the minister marries you and you don't go to court, you are not married. So the marriage, really... is by the contract that is recognized and required by the government in every case."
Update 10: Sen. Squadron, a co-sponsor, spoke very nicely about religious freedom.
Update 9: Sen. Liz Krueger, a co-sponsor, is up, says she doesn't understand how anyone could vote no, urges yes.
Update 8: Sen. Savino from Staten Island, a co-sponsor, is up. "I am over the age of 40, and that's all you're gonna get from me, but i have never been able to maintain the relationship that [openly gay State Senator] Tom and his partner Lewis have." "We in government don't determine the quality of relationships. If we did, we would not issue 3/4 of the marriage licenses that we do." Throughout her whole speech I've been very impressed. A lot of folks talk generically about fairness and equality, but she has the ability, like I saw from Massa at our Netroots Nation caucus, to talk in anecdotes everyone can understand.
Update 7: Sen. Espada, the majority leader infamous for co-engineering the coup to flip to the Republicans earlier this summer, is up. He made me nervous talking about voting your conscience, but is talking about how it is historically correct to expand civil rights. "Let's send forth a message of hope by voting yes here today, and not continued to be scared into ignorance." Encourages colleagues to vote yes.
Update 6: Sen. Parker, a co-sponsor, is up talking about the benefits for the bill for gay couples: access to a partner's coverage under Medicaid and SocSec, ability to make medical decisions, right to sue for wrongful death, ability to sponsor one's partner for immigration among the major ones.
Update 5: Sen. Valesky, my boyfriend's state Senator from Syracuse, and previously undecided, is up talking. HE IS VOTING IN FAVOR. This is big, and brings us to 24 yes votes by my count. Need 32.
Update 4: Sen. Klein, whom my mother would take one look at and call a nice Jewish boy, apologizes to advocates that they took so long to debate. Word. Goes on to discuss how legalizing marriage equality would result in an economic benefit to NYC "to the tune of $200 million over a 3-year period."
Update 3: Sen. Adams, a bill co-sponsor and African-American, reads off a list of states that at one time or another sold blacks into slavery because of a vote. "Just because a numerical majority is in the right place doesn't mean they are in the right place." He also reads off quotes about how interracial marriage would be essentially the end of civilization, comments "thank God for Google". "The same statements being made about [openly gay bill sponsor] Sen. Tom Duane... are the same comments that my grandmother received." "You don't have to be gay to respect the rights of those who are."
Update 2: Sen. Schneiderman, a bill co-sponsor, references civil rights history and making Thomas Jefferson's words "ever more true". Points to MA, Vermont, Canada, NYS's next-door neighbors, which legally have marriage. Not to mention married couples living in NY as a result of Gov. Paterson's order to give equal rights to out-of-state married couples living in NYS.
Update 1: Sen. Diaz, a known opponent, is talking about how many states have voted against marriage and how many religions are against it. Awesome guy. He essentially makes the argument that we should do it through the courts, but if we did it through the courts, he would be saying it should be done through the people's representatives.
----
This is a live-blog for the NYS Senate marriage debate. You can also follow along on my Twitter feed.
Debate started around 12:25 PM EST. There will be four hours of debate on the bill, and then each of the 62 members will be allowed, if they choose, 2 minutes to explain their position on the bill.
Some background on procedure and whip counts below the fold:
Update 3: The Senate also cleared public authority reform, one of the other five bills named by Shafran as on the agenda.
Update 2: The Senate just passed the long-debated, long-awaited deficit reduction package, which was expected to come first before marriage equality. Phew.
Update: The bill just passed the Senate Rules Committee.
From Austin Shafran, the spokesperson for the NYS Senate Majority Conference:
"The Senate will reconvene in extraordinary session today at which time it intends to vote on the deficit reduction plan, Tier V pension reform, public authority reform, and marriage equality legislation.
Session is streamed live on the internet at http://nysenate.gov; the debate on marriage equality will be carried via satellite, with coordinates to be released later in the day prior to the bill being brought to the floor."
I will be live-blogging the debate when it starts, and will have more on vote numbers later today.
Update 2: Late last night, the Assembly re-passed marriage equality legislation, 86-51.
Update:The Senate will not go into session tonight, and will reconvene at 10 am tomorrow.
A senior Democratic Senate aide just told me that the New York State Senate will be voting on marriage equality, mostly likely either very late tonight (the Senate goes back into session at 9 pm) or tomorrow. As expected, the vote will, at some point, follow the passage of the long-debated deficit reduction package. I also was told that the Senate Democratic conference leader, Sen. John Sampson, privately told staff he expects it to pass "with a high degree of confidence". Another indicator that it will likely pass is Sen. Ruben Diaz, a vocal opponent of marriage equality, says he has retreated to his office to pray.
Like I wrote before, the Assembly has already previously passed legislation and Gov. Paterson will sign the bill. The chances are near-zero for the bill to be repealed at the ballot. So this would be in the bag in the third-most populous state in the union, and same-sex couples in New York State would earn full respect and equality.
I spent all weekend talking to a number of folks about this, so I have an update on the potential for the New York State Senate to pass a marriage equality bill. Reminder that the Assembly has previously passed such legislation and that Gov. Paterson has said repeatedly he will sign it, and put the bill on the agenda for the special session.
Some notes:
Schedule: The Legislature went into special session last week, and came out without a vote. They are back in this week with the major purpose of passing a deficit reduction package (DRP) and a few other minor bills. They started yesterday and it was quite a mess, including one Democrat threatening to not even show up unless a deal is cut. Today, the Assembly is in, but Senate members are still huddled in negotiations. My own opinion, confirmed by several people and hinted at by Sen. Espada, the majority leader, is that they will not act on marriage equality until moving on DRP, partly for the politics of "doing the 'important' people's business" before doing marriage. The leadership also promised a vote before the end of the year, giving them more time to not act right now.
From various whip counts made privately to me, some phone calls I've made to offices, and one reported publicly, we have 22, possibly 23 (the ones reported on NY1 are correct plus Monserrate, minus Huntley) solid Yes's among Democrats, 4-6 potentials, and 4 No's (Aubertine, Diaz, Onorato, Stachowski). On the Republican side, NY1 has reported 19 No's, although I'm told a few are more fluid. It looks like there are anywhere from 5-10 potential Republicans to get onboard. The magic number to pass is 32.
To illustrate how fluid this is, below is an e-mail my boyfriend, a Syracuse resident, sent to Sen. Valesky:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: valesky@senate.state.ny.us
Date: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: Vote for the marriage equality bill
To: Perry
Thank you for your email with regard to the Governor's Marriage Equality Bill.
Please know that should this bill make it to the Senate floor, I will be supporting it.
I hope this information is helpful to you.
Best,
Dave Valesky
State Senator
From: Perry
To: valesky@senate.state.ny.us
Date: 11/10/2009 03:24 PM
Subject: Vote for the marriage equality bill
Senator David Valesky
State Capitol Building
Washington Ave. and State Street
Albany, NY 12247
Dear Senator Valesky,
I need you to make sure the marriage equality bill (S.4401) comes to the floor today and to vote in support of this crucial legislation for LGBT families. Same-sex couples and their families cannot and should not have to wait any longer for a vote that will determine if they will have access to the 1,324 rights and protections that our state provides to all other
married couples.
It is time for the New York State Senate to take up the issue of marriage equality. Millions of gay and lesbian New Yorkers and their friends and families expect and deserve a vote on this
matter in the State Senate.
This should not be a partisan matter. It should be a vote of conscience that occurs today. I will be watching to see what action you take on this issue.
Sincerely,
Perry Singleton
I called Sen. Valesky's office yesterday morning to confirm and was told he is still making up his mind. Perry called yesterday afternoon and was told the same. Another friend of mine also called and was told he is "likely to support." I had a very long conversation with another undecided Democrat today who said they are very, very undecided on this and feeling the pressure of churches in the district, but wants to support fairness.
This thing is very fluid, so it's important to keep making phone calls. Empire State Pride Agenda has an easy tool that even dials for you. Even if you have a Senator who is on record supporting the bill, there are a lot of Yes votes out there who do not want to touch this issue, and need pressure. Even if you have a Republican, the minority leader, Sen. Skelos, has said he will let his caucus members vote their conscience. Looking at the numbers, I believe this bill with either pass or fail by a hair.
If it passes, there is a near-zero chance it can be put on the ballot for repeal. It will make New York State the third-largest state to allow gay couples to wed. Please call, and report any response you hear back in the comments.
Great news late last night. A number of sources told me there was repeated caucusing all throughout the day yesterday in the Senate Democratic conference and between LGBT advocates, continuing into the night. At last, a deal was announced. Paul Schindler of Gay City News reports:
Flanked by four members of the State Senate Democratic majority and the leader of New York's LGBT lobby, Governor David A. Paterson announced an agreement by which the Senate leadership has, for the first time, agreed to debate and vote on a marriage equality bill before the end of 2009.
"This is the first time that the Senate leadership has indicated that it will support a vote on marriage equality," the governor said. "This is a stunning and very happy development in this process."
[...]
Paterson was joined by the Senate's deputy majority leader, Jeffrey Klein, who represents portions of the Bronx and Westchester, Brooklyn Senator Eric Adams, Manhattan Senator Eric Schneiderman, and Thomas K. Duane, the out gay Chelsea senator who is the lead sponsor of the marriage equality bill. Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, was also on hand.
The day capped a chaotic "extraodinary session" in which the Senate declined to take action on Paterson's proposals for closing a widening budget gap -- meaning legislators will return to Albany on Monday to resume that effort -- and the Democrats caucused on on and off in passionate, even heated debate about whether the marriage bill would be taken up. As senators moved in and out of the offices of the Majority Conference, dozens of advocates, many affiliated with Marriage Equality New York, kept up a chant of "We deserve a vote."
The agreement that the governor announced Tuesday evening was hammered out in a tense, but frank meeting he held with Senate leaders and advocates just prior to the press conference.
Thanks to all of you who made calls yesterday asking your Senator to support a vote. From what I'm told, it made a very real difference in the internal deliberations between Senators and the leadership.
Our job now is to obtain the votes. A number of outlets have reported vote totals below the 32 needed to pass as bill as of now. I argued yesterday in favor of having a vote even with the knowledge that it would fail rather than pushing this off into 2010 or 2011, and that is still the optimal strategy.
If you haven't done so yet, call your State Senator and ask him/her to vote in favor of marriage equality.
I'll have more on this fight as it comes. Game on.
Update:Jeremy Peters and Liz Benjamin are both reporting that a vote won't happen today, but that it isn't delayed permanently. Sen. Espada, the majority leader, said he believes it will follow the Governor's deficit reduction plan next week. This follows what Benjamin's source reported, which is that Senators couldn't go back to voters and say they enacted marriage equality but no deficit reduction plan. I'm told conversations are still ongoing to have a vote later this week or next week. So there is still a likelihood. Keep the calls up.
I don't usually get too personal on you guys, but this is important. This morning, OpenLeft sent out an action blast with that title to the New Yorkers on our list (if you're not signed up for OpenLeft Action, click here to do so)
You read that right. I can't.
No really, I can't. I'm a regular guy from Buffalo and I can't get married. Why?
Because I'm gay.
Today, all that can change. But I need your help.
In our home state of New York, the New York State Senate will go into special session today, and we have an opportunity to win a vote on legislation to enact marriage equality for same-sex couples. This vote could happen as early as TODAY.
Here's the deal. Gov. Paterson has called another special session and asked that marriage equality be put on the agenda. The session starts today. The Assembly has previously passed such legislation and Gov. Paterson will sign the bill. New York does not allow for ballot referenda to enact or overturn laws, so there is very little chance this will be repealed like in Maine and California.
The problem is, the State Senators themselves decide what is on the agenda, not Paterson, and what I'm hearing from a number of sources is that pressure needs to be put on the conference leader, Sen. John Sampson, from State Senators. There are a lot of "Yes" vote Democrats who do not necessarily want to see a vote. Tom Duane, the openly gay Senate sponsor, has said for months that he has the votes, and the problem is getting the leadership to take it up. The reason this needs to happen is if it gets put off until 2010, an election year for State Senators, it is even more likely to not come up for a vote. And in 2011, we might have an anti-equality Republican governor on our hands. So this needs to happen now.
So, if you live in New York State and wouldn't mind helping me and lots of other couples get married, I would sure appreciate it. Empire State Pride Agenda has a neat tool that connects you with your State Senator (you literally don't even have to dial). Fill it out here. Ask that he or she (a) ask Sen. Sampson for a vote on marriage equality (b) to vote in favor.
Even if you know your State Senator is in favor of marriage equality, it's important to call and remind him/her to ask for a vote. We could put this one in the bag and make New York State the fifth state to legislatively enact marriage equality. The third-largest state in the union. If you're a New Yorker, take a minute to call.
After losses like the one in Maine, I always feel like the best way to channel anger is into the next fight. Well, we've got one on our hands. Empire State Pride Agenda just e-mailed out the following:
Marriage equality has been an issue Governor Paterson has long championed and we are thrilled he has called the State Senate back to Albany next Tuesday and put the marriage equality bill on the agenda. We now expect that we will get the respectful debate and vote that we've been waiting for since June.
There is never a wrong time or inconvenient time to debate human rights legislation because it's always the right time. As long as a group of New Yorkers are being denied equal rights, addressing issues like marriage equality must always be a priority. Support for providing equal rights to LGBT New Yorkers has always been bipartisan, and we expect that this bill will be no different.
We look forward to hearing our lives and our families debated on the Senate floor next Tuesday. It's now time that each of the 62 State Senators vote their conscience on this bill that has great implications for hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers in all parts of the state.
For more background, Paul Schindler at Gay City News has the story. It appears we either have or are very close to having the votes.
What remains to be seen is whether the State Senate will actually vote. Paterson has called special sessions before and called for a vote and not gotten one.
New York State is my home state, and this would be fantastic to see. The Assembly already previously passed legislation, and Gov. Paterson has pledged to sign the bill.
If you're from New York, call your legislator. One should assume it's on the agenda for the time being. I just called Sen. Razenhofer (never hurts). Empire State Pride Agenda has a great tool here.
