It certainly is a day of good news for LGBT couples. Thanks to your help in sending nearly 4,000 e-mails to NBC executives and tweeting @todayshow, after GLAAD's meeting (not to be confused with the legal services organization GLAD in the post below this one) with NBC executives today, NBC decided to open the contest up to same-sex couples.
Not only did NBC agree with "community concerns", but it said it will extend the deadline to Monday, July 12th, in order for same-sex couples to organize their submissions (it was originally tomorrow).
NBC's statement:
Over the past few days TODAY has received a considerable response regarding our wedding contest application. The rules stated that eligible couples must be able to be legally married in New York, where we will host the wedding, therefore excluding same-sex couple applicants. Our intent was not to be discriminatory or exclusive. In 2005 when the wedding took place outside of New York, the application process was open to same-sex couples. We have listened to every voicemail and read every email. We take this feedback seriously, and we will change our application process. TODAY is a longtime supporter of the LGBT community, and GLAAD considers us an ally. We are committed to keeping those relationships strong and positive. We have opened up the application process to same-sex couples, and will extend the deadline to Monday, July 12. Moving forward, we ensure that our future wedding contests will be inclusive of all couples.
If you're a same-sex couple who is engaged and planning to be legally married, you can read the other requirements and enter here. Finalists will be announced later this year and the wedding will take place live on the Today Show- a huge step forward for visibility of loving, committed same-sex couples.
Thanks for all the help, OpenLefters. Big wins today.
This afternoon I wrote about The Today Show's wedding contest and its exclusion of same-sex couples from entering. At the time 2,600 e-mails were sent to NBC urging them to reconsider, a number that is now just shy of 3,500.
This evening, some good news from GLAAD, which has been leading the effort to allow same-sex couples to enter:
Late this afternoon we received a phone call from NBC asking GLAAD to meet tomorrow with Today Show Executive Producer, Jim Bell and key NBC communications representatives.
We have accepted NBC's invitation to sit face to face and discuss the Today Show wedding contest. We will be standing firm in urging the network to do the right thing and open the contest.
What GLAAD wants is the same thing that the thousands of people who wrote to NBC want. We want committed same-sex couples to have the same opportunity to share our stories of love and commitment and to be considered for this exciting wedding competition.
We will report back to you with any new developments after the meeting.
Here's hoping sensibility and fairness prevail.
Again, two things you can do:
1) Sign the Change.org petition, which will send an e-mail to NBC executives, urging them to allow same-sex couples to wed.
NBC's The Today Show is holding a "Modern Day Wedding Contest"- but only making applications open to opposite-sex couples. NBC says it is because the wedding will take place in New York State, which does not allow same-sex couples to marry.
Unfortunately, this argument overlooks two important facts: First, many same-sex couples have their wedding celebration in states that do not offer the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, while legally marrying out-of-state. My best friend was wed last fall in Virginia, of all places, because that's where her closest friends were and her fiance's family lived nearest. But they then took a honeymoon to Vermont, where they also tied the knot legally. There's no reason the same could not happen for couples who wish to do so in New York State, particularly because four surrounding states- Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut- all same-sex couples the freedom to marry.
Second, New York State, courtesy of an executive action by Gov. Paterson, recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples who wed out of state. So it's even likely we're talking about NYS couples who wish to celebrate and reside in the state. There's no reason they should be treated any differently.
Change.org and GLAAD have a petition to NBC that sent 2,600 e-mails so far to NBC executives. Via Towleroad, NBC responded positively:
Two things you can do to help:
1) Sign the Change.org petition, which will send an e-mail to NBC executives, urging them to allow same-sex couples to wed.
Fight Back NY, a relatively new PAC working to defeat New York State Senators who voted against marriage equality (they did some work in helping to oust Monserrate), announced it will target Sen. Bill Stachowski from the 58th District. Here's a copy of their direct mail piece, sent over e-mail:
The 58th is about 30 minutes from where I grew grew up- south Buffalo, Lackawanna, and the surrounding suburbs. Heavily Polish, heavily Catholic, and churches as far as the eye can see. Stachowski is a 30-year fossil who has kowtowed to Catholic influences of his district in opposing the legislation legalizing same-sex marriage last year. I normally don't have a problem with long-serving members- I have friends who support term limits and hate career politicians but mourn the death of Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd in the same sentence- but in Stachowski's case, it's time for him to go.
I had been supporting Sean Cooney, a local attorney who had been strongly active in progressive circles, and works for my friend's dad, until he dropped out a few weeks ago. Democrats are left with Tim Kennedy, a corrupt transactional Erie County legislator who cut a deal with state billionaire Tom Golisano and his political guy, Steve Pigeon. The deal was to vote to hand over the keys to the Democrat-controlled County Legislature over to a chairwoman supporting Chris Collins, the County Executive and a Republican who governs like George W. Bush in his style of not giving a crap about anyone or anything besides beating Democrats, being confrontational and low taxes, not to mention refusing an audit of his own office and cutting every single decent program I can think of, be it human services, arts, or otherwise (or, put another way, one of the few elected officials I would consider moving out of town to go and beat, along with Holy Joe Lieberman). In exchange, Kennedy gets Golisano's financial support. Nice.
In the general, Jack Quinn Jr., the local Assemblyman and a Republican (and son of the former Congressman), is seeking the seat. So there aren't a lot of good choices here. That said, Tim Kennedy has endorsed marriage equality and if (a big if) he stays true to his promise, that along with his other positions on some issues, particularly labor, would be an improvement over Stachowski. Nearly as important is the opportunity to send a message that elected officials who vote against the freedom to marry are going to find themselves in a tough race, and that's what FBNY is doing here. For me, it's a reluctant, but necessary fight to beat Stachowski- one of the eight Democrats who voted against legalizing marriage equality- and send a message.
You can chip in here to help channel more money into beating Stachowski. I threw in $5.
Yesterday, the New York State Senate Judiciary Committee voted down GENDA, which would have added gender identity to the state's anti-discrimination statutes. Sexual orientation is already protected as a basis for discrimination. The vote was 11 in favor and 12 against, with every Democrat except resident homophobe Ruben Diaz in support and every Republican against.
In examining what happened and checking in with folks on the ground, I've noticed a few striking parallels that exacerbate my frustration with both New York State politics as well as the pro-equality leaders in my home state.
Once again, there was either a rampant case of Democratic leadership wrongly assuming they had the votes, or Republicans lying straight-up, or both. Either way, it's not a good sign. For background, see here for more of my thoughts on how we could have lost the marriage vote by an embarrassing 24-32. There are a lot of echoes of that yesterday, as we went into the vote knowing we needed a Republican. Sen. Lanza from Staten Island actually voted yes before Diaz shouted at him, at which point he actually changed his vote to no. Seriously. Sen. Maziarz was a possibility, but also voted no. The question remains whether or not it was presumed Lanza was in hand when he was not, and also why to hold the vote at all instead of waiting to shore up support.
I say "shore up support" because if you read the transcript of the committee vote, (h/t Jillian Weiss) there was actually confusion over what the bill would actually do. Part of that is because our supporters fielded, as Jill rightly put it, a "B-team". Sen. Savino, who made very strong arguments during the marriage debate, was not very good yesterday, almost casually trivializing arguments in opposition to the bill instead of taking them head-on. Even the legislative counsel in support of the bill could not adequately explain how "gender identity" was defined in the bill nor what it meant in terms of the workplace for the purposes of restrooms and so forth, despite the Assembly having voted on this and passed it twice already, just like it did on- wait for it- the marriage equality bill. Most shocking of all, the bill's own freaking sponsor and the only openly gay member of the body, Sen. Tom Duane, did not even show up. If you take Sen. Lanza as a gettable vote for the bill- and I do- it was clear from the transcript his clearly stated concerns were not answered at all.
Part of that is because of the once again less-than-noteworthy performance of Sen. Duane. This is the same State Senator who said four separate times in five months some variation of "I have the votes" in reference to the marriage bill, only to fall flat by several, which led to zero Republican support for the bill when it was clear it was going to fail. This is also the same State Senator who cracked jokes on the floor during debate on the marriage bill instead of giving a heart-wrenching oration that might have won over the last few. Now it's the same State Senator who was the lead sponsor of the bill yet couldn't actually manage to show up to debate yesterday, leaving committee members after the vote actually wondering out loud where he was.
Disagreement over tactics. With the marriage bill, there was a strong disagreement among advocates- behind the scenes with colleagues of mine, as well as openly between Empire State Pride Agenda and Sen. Duane, on whether to hold a vote. Similar was true here. In New York State, the committee system can be bypassed and bills are often brought directly to the Rules Committee and then straight to the floor. While Housing Works, a lead advocate, reported the other week that 32 votes existed on the floor for passage, the bill sat in a hostile committee for weeks, then at the last minute moved by the conference leader, Sen. Sampson, to the committee he himself chairs, and still could not pass. Duane, the lead sponsor, blames that process as being a key reason for the bill's failure. From NY Daily News:
Duane attributed the defeat partly to a difference of opinions on legislative strategy.
"it is now yet again confirmed that the Senate is a cesspool of homophobia and transphobia," said Duane, who is openly gay. "The advocates wanted to go through a committee... I believe that we should have brought GENDA through Rules and brought it right to the floor so as to deny the right-wing fringe the ability to organize against GENDA with their lies and distortions."
Housing Works said the same. It's distressing to so often see advocates inside and outside the chamber who are not on the same page, and that this route was chosen and ended at failure. And it once against cost the LGBT community.
Sometimes it is hard to tell which is more depressing, the ineffective pro-equality leadership in New York State, or not having pro-equality votes. Probably the former, because if someone like Pelosi were running the show, she would be able to marshal the latter who were gettable. I do know that it is embarrassing to lose like this on two major LGBT bills in the same cycle, and to have wasted a rare opportunity of a pro-equality Assembly and governor along with a Democratic Senate that was willing to move bills previously stuck.
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.
Some friends have been asking me about what's being done to build on the 24 votes in the New York State Senate for marriage equality (you need 32 for passage). I can say that so far that two, and possibly three, of the no votes will flip.
In Astoria, State Sen. George Onorato (D), who was a no vote, has elected to retire. His replacement will almost assuredly be Assemblyman Mike Gianaris, elected in 2000, who ran for Attorney General in 2006 before getting out of the race. Gianaris voted multiple times for marriage equality when it was up in the Assembly, is also great on energy issues. I'm told by local Queens activists that he also frequently attends local LGBT events and is very strong on LGBT issues. Given all this, he should be a solid pro-marriaeg equality vote, and the seat is all but his.
Also in Queens, State Sen. Monserrate (D), who was convicted and sentenced to 3 years probation for slashing his girlfriend's face, and who flip-flopped on his support for marriage equality going back to 2001 by voting no, was recommended for expulsion this week by a special investigative Senate Committee for lying about his crime. Whether Monserrate can actually be expelled is up for a debate at TAP, but given the precedent set, it seems he can be. Regardless, his opponent, Assemblyman Jose Peralta, who also voted for marriage equality in the Assembly, has raised just under $180,000 and has $154,000 on hand, including contributions from several members of the NY congressional delegation and even Reps. Delahunt and Wexler (how cool is that?!). Monserrate has about $93K on hand and also has to contend with his legal fight. Look for this one to flip, too. And go here to sign the petition to demand the State Senate fire Monserrate.
On the Republican side, former City Councilman Tony Avella (D), who ran in last year's primary for NYC mayor against Thompson, is still exploring getting in the race against State Sen. Frank Padavan (R), who won in 2008 by under 500 votes after a lengthy recount. Avella sponsored marriage equality legislation on the City Council and was also backed by Working Families Party in the last several elections. I'm told he's unlikely to have as clear a field as Gianaris or Peralta, though. We'll see on that one.
The one other thing I do want to mention is that the skepticism on all of these guys is well-warranted. The rallying cry has been "No more Addabbos", referring to Sen. Joe Addabbo (D), who won one of the most heavily targeted races in 2008, pledged to support marriage equality, and even took a combined total of $20,000 from bill sponsor State Sen. Duane, Empire State Pride Agenda, and Gill Action Fund. He still voted no. There really is no magic bullet on how to ensure the people you elect adhere to their promises. Politicians lie. The best thing to do is to find those who do not just make pledges, but like the challengers above, have a long, strong history of activism in favor of marriage equality; scaring the living hell out of them if they even consider going back on their word; pressuring them to go public with their support for the bill when it comes up; and keeping up the grassroots pressure around the vote. Some, but not all of these things were done, particularly around the vote, and that needs to change next time around. But we start by finding and electing folks we can trust.
A good deal of criticism against generic "Democrats" has begun in the aftermath of the loss over marriage equality in New Jersey. Yesterday, Garden State Equality launched a push poll on its website:
Which Senators who voted "no" or abstained on marriage equality bother you more?
Conservative anti-LGBT Republicans who were never with us to begin with.
OR
Democrats and moderate Republicans who didn't have the guts to stand for equality.
Not surprisingly, as of this post, 98% of the 1,325 votes were for the latter option. The poll follows a trend by the organization to warn Democrats that the LGBT community is not a one-party community, as Steven Goldstein said:
In an effort to stay in front of rising anger in the New Jersey LGBT Community, GSE president Steven Goldstein dropped his long-time dedication to the Democratic Party, threatening that gays would "cross the aisle to support independent candidates" in future elections.
I think making threats like this is generally fine. When the Newsweek piece came out a few weeks ago predicting the Obama Administration wouldn't take action on LGBT issues in 2010 for fear of mobilizing an angry conservative base, I told a lot of LGBT friends that now was the time to push back against that. We had to put the fear of God into Village Democrats that a pissed-off LGBT base would stay home if no activism was taken. That's how the game is played.
But what I find amazing is people who have fallen for promises that simply electing a Democratic majority would bring about LGBT utopia. Quite a few LGBT donors and activist friends have told me personally they were sick and tired of helping committees to elect Democratic majorities in NY and NJ and being told that, in return, Democratic leadership would ensure marriage equality becomes law, when it did not.
If I may chide for a minute, you certainly got played on that one, my friends.
We're talking about LGBT issues here, people. You, know, G-A-Y. Homosexuality. Trannies. I'm mentioning these terms because to many members of legislative bodies, these issues are anathema to them and their constituents, so I would never believe that any Democratic leader is going to go out and actually pressure members on marriage equality or make it a "party loyalty" vote like they would on other bills. Why would you expect that just because potential Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith promises you he'll "deliver" marriage equality, it would be so? I laugh at people who tell me marriage equality is a "core plank of the Democratic platform" and so are outraged when things like this happen. No, it's not. In what fantasyland are you living? In an ideal world, sure. And you should keep going after Democrats for "not acting like true Democrats/not having guts" so we can get there. But we're not operating in that ideal world.
So there's a big difference between believing what Democratic leaders promise and having realistic political expectations. Realistic political expectations means that just because a politician says a Democratic majority will deliver marriage equality doesn't mean the votes are actually there or that members are going to be threatened into line. In fact, while Malcolm Smith was making these promises to LGBT activists, he was cutting a side deal with Ruben Diaz to not have a vote. Realistic political expectations means that LGBT victories are coalition-built, not Party-built. You have to go out and find Democrats and Republicans and Independents, one by one, who swear on their mother's life they will vote for marriage equality, and put the fear of God into them if they even consider screwing you.
Instead, what we've done is taken the easy route and elected a Democratic majority and expected all would be well, then became shell-shocked when marriage equality did not pass. Exhibit A is Garden State Equality, which contributed tens of thousands to the Senate Democratic Leadership Fund, the Assembly Leadership Fund, and the New Jersey Democratic State Committee- money that is doled out to Democratic candidates to elect and retain majorities without regard to positions on marriage equality. The day after the vote, Goldstein said "The gay ATM is done." It's the same argument that progressives shouldn't bother contributing to the DSCC. Find progressive candidates, one by one, and help them individually. I myself become incredibly frustrated when people blame "The Democrats" for our woes. Which Democrats, I ask? Specifics matter. Find the ones who screwed you and beat them. A Democratic majority is important, but it only provided the opportunity for a vote. It did not provide the votes. You have to go get those yourself.
Now, will individual politicians lie to you on issues, just as Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu lied over the public option? Absolutely. There are always a few bad apples who operate in bad faith. But I can assure you that building your marriage equality coalition one by one is a hell of a lot smarter than simply electing a Democratic majority and then being all infuriated when "The Democrats" didn't "deliver" marriage equality.
You win by building coalitions, not by building parties.
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.
In May:
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 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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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.
