New York’s State Assembly is expected to pass a piece of same-sex marriage legislation today. Just like it did in 2007, only to see the State Senate fail to push the measure through. But now that everyone’s a Democrat, it’ll be no problem, right? LOLZ!
Inside the statehouse, the bill’s openly gay sponsor Daniel O’Donnell of Manhattan (pictured right, he the brother of Rosie) says he’s expecting even Republicans to get on board. “I’m confident we will have more votes. … There’s been a sea change in the last two years.” O’Donnell is credited with ratcheting up many of the 90 expected votes out of 150 assemblymen and women, including Republican Assemblyman Greg Ball, a retired Air Force captain, who O’Donnell went after by tracking down Ball’s parents during a visit to the Capitol and pressuring them to lean on their son. We love that! Too bad Ball still plans on voting no. (O’Donnell became the state’s first openly gay assembly man in 2002; there are now four.)
But over in the Senate, Majority Leader Malcolm Smith reveals the Assembly’s efforts are futile. Without 32 votes, “I’m not bringing the bill to the floor.”
As we all know, Smith is standing behind the “if it won’t pass, I’m not bringing it up” logic, which is a farce. Rather, he’s standing firm on a promise he made to anti-gay Sen. Ruben Diaz, who refused to help anoint Smith as majority leader unless Smith promised not to bring up gay marriage. (Diaz and a group of Hispanic religious leaders are holding an anti-gay marriage rally outside Gov. David Paterson’s New York City office on Saturday.)
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Of course, Smith isn’t telling anyone just how many votes shy he is of the 32 needed to move the bill, even with some Republicans joining in. All of which screams of PLAYING POLITICS WITH OUR RIGHTS. The guy isn’t even pretending like he’s trying to lock up the votes.
Shameful. (And here’s how to reach him.)
dgz
please read that headline. New York is more than “NYC.”
Chitown Kev
Queerty, what’s a shame is here is another race-baiting article.
Smith is a supporter of marriage equality but, yes, he is the head of the Senate and Ruben Diaz (the real enemy) has threatened, in a coalition with 3 other Dems, to flip the entire New York Senate Republica. Smith was not done a good hand here at all.
YOUR ARTICLE IS SHAMEFUL AND POLITICALLY STUPID!
jamesjames
Is Queerty only allowed to write about WHITE Mormons and Catholics like the brain-dead celebrities do?
Hey Queerty! You are not allowed to write about BLACK homophobes … only WHITE homophboes! Otherwise you are RACIST! Remeber that, and remember it good! How dare you call bigots out on thier homophobic bigotry, Queerty. The RACIST nerve of you, ya RACISTS! Stick to blaming WHITE PEOPLE for EVERYTHING, that way you won’t be called a RACIST! Ya RACISTS!
mickey's mouse
Still, our public figures should stop being so self-serving and actually work for the people…It’s been like this for years “oh it’s politics…” you’re a public figure for a reason, you need to defend the people, the people shouldn’t defend you. And It’s too often that politicians play games with the people’s lives. Politics isn’t about the games, it’s about making life good for the people under your jurisdiction, regardless of their stance in life.
Politicians routinely used religion to garner votes, and now they’re getting stuck in either being religious or not. The whole self-preservation thing is disgusting, and personally I think politicians who aren’t doing their job for all the people(in the sense of equality)should have their positions of power taken away. This is supposed to be a democracy of equal people under the law, and our government is failing us. The rules have been twisted and screwed. Our forefathers would not be proud of the way things are going. Religious liberties does not mean religious absolute. You are free to practice your religion inside your temples of worship without being cast out. that’s what religious freedom is, it does not mean you can push your religion and your values on others if they do not want it.
America has changed from the way the forefathers intended it to be. I am sure they are convulsing in their graves from the gross misconduct Legislators and Anti-gay politicians are acting.
Chitown Kev
@jamesjames:
Please, who is even claiming that Smith is a homophobe, but you? In fact, Sen. Smith has stood up publically to his minister who actually IS a homophobe.
Maybe it was a rusdh to say this was race baiting but Queerty obviously has absolutely no…political acumen in this particular story. Diaz is the real enemy here, nor Smith at all and to paint Smith as an enemy is politically stupid.
Dabq
Until religion and paybacks to politicians are out of government, social issues will still be decided by the so called faithful.
Chitown Kev
@Dabq:
True.
edgyguy1426
I think Smith IS an enemy if he made a deal with the devil (Diaz) to trade bringing up the the vote on our rights for his position as majority leader.
Topher
@Chitown Kev: I disagree. Diaz is being a tyrannical child. When I see a child throwing a fit at the mall because he didn’t get a new toy, I don’t blame the child. I blame the parent who enabled the child to act in such a way. Smith is to blame in my opinion. If he was really being a leader, he would make it clear to Diaz that he has been heard, but his counsel will not be taken.
With all that being said, this reeks of a much larger issue. This clearly indicates the need for us to eliminate politician as a career choice. I honestly believe that politicians base too much of their opinion on the law on whether it will help or prevent them from getting elected again. I am not convinced that many politicians actually vote their conscience (even though the Republicans are allowed to on this one).
And what a brilliant publicity gambit that was for the Republicans. They recognize that Smith cannot move the bill to the floor because he made a dirty deal with Diaz and so they paint themselves as the enlightened politicians who don’t have an agenda. This will likely backfire on the democrats who are attempting to hold on to their majority by not bringing the bill to a vote.
Chitown Kev
@Topher:
I agree in large part with you but it’s a coalition of 3 votes that Diaz has. It’s not just Diaz.
The Dems only have a 1 vote margin in the State Senate. While I agree with you that Diaz and his coalition aren’t going anywhere, with a 1 vote margin I wouldn’t take the chance politically unless I had the votes. So…I don’t like Smith’s position but it’s a tough one.
Given the math, it is a politically Machivellian move for the Republicans which (putting the issue aside for a moment) I would totally do to box Smith in.
Chitown Kev
@edgyguy1426:
I don’t think it was simply as majority leader, though, I think that the NY Senate would have tipped to the Republicans as well. Far more was involved.
Topher
@Chitown Kev: I had forgotten it is a coalition of three votes. However, the symbolic vote (even if we know it will fail) might be important for the people of New York. I lived in California when the legislature twice passed marriage equality to have it vetoed by the governator. The first time it was reassuring to know we had the votes, the second time it was emboldening to know how solid the support was.
All I know is that I wouldn’t want to be in Smith’s shoes. But lets not also forget how much of this came about. Governor Patterson’s discussion of the subject brought much of this to a head, Smith’s head. He should probably get a little heat for the present predicament unless he delivers three more senate votes.
The Gay Numbers
Did one actually read the article- just curious.
murph
@Chitown Kev: What you did there is give supposed “pro-gay” Democrats carte blanche to do nothing for the community by simply letting the blame fall on Republicans. Wrong. Unless the Dems step up to pass this legislation, they’re just as at fault for us not having marriage rights. Smith literally handed away our chance for marriage equality when he made that deal with Diaz (and the other two). OF COURSE you have to play politics to be in politics, but I’m shocked you would defend a guy who gambled your rights in a poker game. And lost.
JoeB
Bring it up for a vote. Make the opponents go on the record saying no, even if it loses–so we will know who not to support in next year’s elections.
Andy
@Chitown Kev:
Just FYI, for future reference, the gang of three isn’t really relevant right now. Pedro Espada, one of the three, has said he’d vote for same-sex marriage. Diaz and Carl Kruger won’t, and never would have regardless of any alleged agreement with Smith. The gang of 3 was more interested in a general power play than gay marriage. Diaz is the only one obsessed with ensuring this vote doesn’t get to the floor.
More relevant are the other democratic Senators who are less publicly opposed, but opposed nonetheless, to same sex marriage, or sitting on the fence. These include Onorato, Valesky, Huntley,Foley, Sampson, Hassel-Thompson, and Stachowski. All of these State Senators need to be convinced that their constituents won’t penalize them for supporting marriage equality.
If Smith has their votes, in addition to a few Republican Senators who have indicated their willingness to consider supporting marriage equality (particularly those from Long Island, Poughkeepsie, Rochester and northern Westchester and Rockland), his agreement with Diaz will be rendered irrelevant.
CHIP
It’s a well known fact in Albany that Smith made the promise to prevent a vote on marriage equality in 2009 in return for being majority leader because of the morally corrupted “Gang of 3” religious conservative state senators. It is also well known that no way in hell would a senate vote come in 2010 in fear of losing re-election over an individual’s vote.
The only realistic way there will be marriage equality in New York State is in 2011, and only if the following is done:
1) Elect 3 more Democrats or even better, have Democrats beat out the “Gang of 3” – Ruben Diaz, Carl Krueger, and Pedro Espada – in their own primaries and push them out of politics for good!
2) Elect a Governor AND Lt. Governor for New York State in 2010(That way if there is a tie (31-31, the Lt. Gov. can break the tie).
3) Have the Democratic Senate leadership elect a majority leader who is willing to change the way Albany seemed to do business and is willing to bring things up for a vote even if not guaranteed to pass. That way one could see debate on the floor and know which no votes could become yes votes.
Chances are at least one of the “Gang of 3” are corrupt and eventually going to have a downfall. In Nassau County, the deputy presiding officer, Roger Corbin (a Democrat), wanted to replace the current presiding officer an older white woman. He felt he wasn’t being given the opportunity to lead because he was black. He went as far as making an agreement to have the Republicans vote for him as presiding officer and he would share power. This is the playbook that Sen. Diaz took a page from! Flash forward to the here and now, and Roger Corbin was arrested for lying to federal agents and not claiming income and paying taxes. All of this was going on while he tried to stage a coup on claims of faux racism. Money problems are usually why people stoop to low tactics in order to increase their power aka salary!
coca_cola
If you idiots would bother reading outside the little bubble here (Queerty), you’ll know that the Senate only needs ONE more vote in order to pass the gay marriage bill.
JoeB
@coca_cola: name calling isn’t necessary. Would you have a link to back this statement up? Thanks.
Will
This article is simply idiotic, like 99 percent of what comes out of this site lately. Smith isn’t “playing politics” with our rights, like your dramatic bullshit states. If the votes aren’t there (and they aren’t – multiple Democrats are opposed and no Republicans have publicly pledged support), why should Smith bring the bill to a vote? Do we need a headline about how we lost on equality in New York? No, I think not.
Chitown Kev
@CHIP:
That sounds like a plan, if this falls through.
Sheesh, Illinois politics looks simple compared to this.
coca_cola
JoeB,
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. If you’d get off your lazy butt and do a little research, rather than just read Queerty all day, you’d find this article in less than 5 minutes…
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=10344604
“The Senate needs just one more vote to pass the measure.”
CHIP
@Will:
The problem with only bringing legislation up for vote if there are enough announced votes is two fold –
1) Not every legislation is black and white, yes or no. During the course of debate on the floor, some legislators might end up changing their minds.
2) Voters deserve to know what their legislator’s stance is on key issues. If there is no vote, they avoid discussing the issue in public discourse, and they don’t go on the record with the press or their constituents on how they would vote, then how do you know their stance?
In the New York Assembly, not a single Republican who voted for marriage equality in 2007 lost re-election in 2008. And Will, not every bill passes on first attempt. By seeing some Senate Republicans vote for marriage equality in 2009, that could lead to others to change their vote on a future bill.
jason
Get your act together, New York. Iowa has beaten you to the punch. That’s right, conservative little Iowa.
jamesjames
@Chitown Kev: maybe you’re dreaming of cotton candy again bc i didn’t acuse him of being a homophobe, i accused you of accusing queerty accusing yo mamma.
flaming a blog and calling it RACIST whenver you disagree is a good way to make a jackass out of yourself … oh wait, let me say ‘oneself’ otherwise you might call me a RACIST! and you see how well that worked for you right? people just tune out the noise of people sreaming RACIST whenever you talk about anyone who is not WASP.
get over yourself.
Chitown Kev
@jamesjames:
And at post #5 I recognized that I was wrong (somewhat)…and noone here has really flamed but you… bitch
…and yo daddy and yo easy greasy granny. Playing the doxzens with me…
Chitown Kev
@coca_cola:
But there was also a NY Daily News Report out of Albany that said 3 or 4 Repub votes will be needed to pass the measure. The Daily News is reporting that at least 4 Dems may vote no.
The situation on the ground in Albany is fluid…
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/05/12/2009-05-12_assembly_to_tackle_samesex_unions.html
CHIP
@coca_cola:
I just spoke with a Senate staffer, as of now 5 Democrats are definately voting No. There is only 1 or 2 Republicans that have said they’d consider voting YES. This doesn’t include the dozen or so Senators that have refused to make their opinion public. No way is this just ONE vote away. I don’t see it happening this year in the Senate. I’m a realist, it will have to wait until 2011.
Sam
@coca_cola: This tally – which is from a Vermont media outlet – contradicts every other story I’ve seen on the issue. All the tallies I’ve seen have us 3-5 votes short…
Chitown Kev
@Chitown Kev:
name calling was not necessary and was wrong of me to do. my apologies.
Chitown Kev
@jamesjames:
#30 was meant for you.
The Gay Numbers
5 is more than anyone else is claiming for Democrats, and, the 1 to 2 Republicans is lower than what is being reported out of Albany so this is a little surprising.
Drake
No one should be defending Malcolm Smith and giving cover to any politician to be able to pander to both sides of the same issue, depending on the group they are speaking to, by preventing them to have a public on the record vote. Make each one go on record, just like Gov Patterson suggested. The Republicans already freed their block to “vote their consciences”. This is more than Malcolm Smith is willing to do for the full Senate. Let’s see how many Republican friends we really have in the Senate, and how many weak-kneed Democrats are also busy mixing church and state. Smith is in fact an obstacle if he does not call the vote. We need to get rid of obstacles. Chitown Kev made several outrageous comments, but his racist comment was the worst. If any gays are not willing to stand up to politicians of any race who obstruct our rights, who impede our progress, who deny to us our equality, step aside and let those of us who do want equal rights vote out of office jerks like Smith. He is abusing his power of position as Majority Leader. What we are asking for in the Senate is real leadership, not cover, and not plausible deniability by any elected officials. Smith’s conduct on a civil rights measure today is shameful, and no better than the obstructionist actions of 40 years ago in Mississippi or Alabama by similar politicians then.
Chitown Kev
@Drake:
The racist comment was wrong. I’ve said that clearly, I’ve apologized for it, and won’t do it again.
Upstate gay
Here is the letter I just emailed to Sen. Smith.
Mr. Smith,
The thought of not bringing legislation to the floor for a vote because you lack the votes required for it to be considered a “slam-dunk” is horrid and abominable. Where would you be today if Lincoln waited for a “slam-dunk” before declaring slaves free men? Where would you be today if Rosa Parks waited for the congressional support to sit at the front of the bus? Where would you be today if people like Harriet Tubman decided to tow the line like a “normal” citizen? You would be nowhere!!!
Every valid equal rights legislation that has passed AND stands the test of time do so because they were not “slam dunk” legislations but ones fought with challenge. You apparently seem to have forgotten what challenge is since you dealt with the “devil in disguise” with your promissory compromize with Reverand Diaz. Reverand Diaz only speaks for his religious rights and not for the rights of ALL. In doing so, he violates every responsibility he has to ALL constituents. I am hispanic and Reverand Diaz does not speak for me.
Massachussets has not crumbled with the onslaught of same-sex marriages within the state. Neither will NY.
About what is at stake here. There is nothing to lose. Religious institutions will not be empowered to bestow vows upon same-sex couples, only they can if they see fit. Not every church is the same. Not every religion is the same. The laws cannot compel the disintegreation of the church but rather the practices within and how it affects the practitioners.
The laws outside of the church are the laws for ALL and should be – must be extended to ALL equally. To not even attempt to bring this measure to the floor denies the equality of many of New Yorkers – black, white, hispanic, oriental, middle eastern, asian, european, christian, muslim, jewish, buddhist, taoist, and pagan alike. When you committed yourself to “service” you committed yourself to serving ALL. By not bringing this measure to a vote, you deny yourself that “service”. You deny all of us that “service”.
So the question remains …. WHO DO YOU REALLY SERVE?
Julian
Whether there are enough votes to pass it right now is irrelevant. The bill needs to go to the senate, be discussed and then voted on. People have the right to know how their elected officials feel about different issues and the only way is by their voting records.
The point of having a representative democracy is to have elected official who will vote for us on the different topics; we give them that power when we vote for them, which is the reason why it is unfair to voters for bills like this to not be brought up for a vote because it prevents us from knowing whether the people we are endorsing with our vote, actually share our views.
Chitown Kev
@Upstate gay:
But…BUT…does Smith have all the votes that he needs to get the legislation passed or does he need to do more work to squeeze more votes? Remember what happened with the initial vote on the bailout in the House last year. And can he squeeze more votes? If he can’t, I say vote on it. If he thinks he can, give it time
In a political context, it’s not simply Smith’s ass on the line it also could be Paterson’s dying breath. Or it may revive it.
FDR was faced with this decision in 1940 with Civil Rights. He didn’t have the gumption that LBJ did in this respect.
Julian
Chitown Kev, while there might be some true to your argument, you lost me on the issue of Smith and Patterson’s asses being on the line. Their job security does not concern me, and I can assure you that the only ass I care about is the one on the boyfriend I cannot marry because these people keep playing with my rights.
Chitown Kev
@Julian:
But their job security concerns THEM. And if you were a politician, your job scurity would concern you within certain boundaries.
Everyone has “selfish” motives in this. Especially politicians. I totally get where you are coming from.
Drake
The reason is very clear why Smith is not calling the issue to a vote. He fears gay power to vote out of office the democrats who vote against us. THe democrats are barely the majority, and he will loose his extra pay and title if these anti-civil rights democrats are not kept in office, along with the good guys. Smith fears gays voting in republican “friends”. We need strong, pro-civil rights democrats to run against the democrats who are against us in a primary.
Chitown Kev
@Drake:
Is it possible in NY that there is “gay power” to do exactly that in upstate NY? And can they beat Republicans?
The Gay Numbers
Chi
We could do a lot of damage in many Democratic enclaves inlcuding in areas like the Bronx and progressive areas of NYC and the state. There are A LOT of gays here
Chitown Kev
LOL.
It’s my own fault I got my ass WHOOPED on this thread today. I should be working.
Julian
Yes, but what politicians like Smith, who don’t allow democracy to run its course because they are more interested in their own needs than the ones of the people they represent, are obstacles to progress.
At this point, I’m starting to wonder if I should just vote republican; at least they discriminate against me to my face.
The Gay Numbers
Chi
the problem is turning gays into a unified force. Remember that number includes crazies like Afrilito who claims to be in the state. I will say after Prop 8- there was a sense amongst my friends of greater interest on these issues. I have some friends who are e not interested in getting married (they do not intend ever get married and in one case mostly sees guys as fuck buddies) all become more more involved and seemed to have a sense of community. I do not know where this energy will go, but it is interesting to see it there. My guess is this has to be on the minds of the state senators.
Chitown Kev
@The Gay Numbers:
I say, flex then.
I wish Illinois were similiar. We can really only do that in Chicago and even in Chicago only to a certain extent.
Chitown Kev
@The Gay Numbers:
Hold off the vote in NY until the California Supreme Court issues their decision?
Scott
@dgz
I went to college at Albany State. It was like a mini-Long Island. This female friend of my roommate asked me where I was from so I gave her my town’s name. She wanted to know where that was and I said in New York. She wanted to know what part of the city that was. I was confused until I realized that her whole existence was New York City & Long Island. I had to explain to her that there’s a whole state called New York. I couldn’t believe she graduated high school!
I used to get peeved that people would refer to the entire area outside of New York City as “upstate”.
jamesjames
@Chitown Kev: how did you know my granny was greazy? that bitch has ALWAYS been greazy!
i’ve forgotten it, hope you have too.
CHIP
1) To MOST NYC residents, UPSTATE is everything above the malls in Westchester or the Tappan Zee bridge. It’s unfortunate, but it’s true that people think like that.
2) Almost all NYC Democrats that won’t vote for this are doing so because of their religious reasons, not their constituents. An overwhelming majority of NYC residents are pro-marriage equality.
3) Moderate Republicans are afraid to vote YES for two reasons – because they are afraid of the religious constituents and organizations in their district, and secondly because of the threat the chairman of the State Conservative Party Michael Long said to Republican Senators – if you vote YES, you will not be endorsed by the Conservative Party. Moderate “downstate” Republicans are noticing their districts are changing with regards to enrollment. Many of them “just” barely beat out their Democratic challenger this November. They know that a loss of 2-5,000 votes could be the difference in their job security.
So, unless the LGBT Powers That Be can promise campaign support, automatic endorsement no matter who the Democrat that runs against them in 2010, and field support to galvanize voters to vote for them in the next election, don’t expect many Westchester/Rockland/Nassau/Suffolk senators to vote YES.
Chitown Kev
@CHIP:
Thanks.
I loooove shit like this.
But unless a Democrat gets into the Governor’s Office, you could be faced with an Ah-nold situation.
CHIP
@Chitown Kev:
Patterson is not running for re-election as we stand today. Cuomo would beat Guilliani, as we stand today. And if Rudy did win, at least we would have Civil Unions, step in the right direction.
Chitown Kev
@CHIP:
Any other Republicans considering a run?
The Gay Numbers
No Rudy will not support civil unions. He still has national ambitions.
CHIP
@The Gay Numbers:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202009/news/columnists/rudy_rips_govs_bid_for_gay_nups_165238.htm
Read the article. Rudy will support civil unions. He will use this as an example of how he, Obama, and Clinton all agree on this issue.
CHIP
@Chitown Kev:
The State Republican Chairman, Joseph Mondello, has asked for Rudy to make a decision as soon as possible. Looks like they are waiting for him to decide this year before allowing other Republicans to put their hat in the ring.
The Gay Numbers
I don’t believe a word Rudy says. He will shift his position if it suits him.
atdleft
@The Gay Numbers: Absolutely! Remember that this is the same Ghouliani who wouldn’t even go to his best friends’ wedding… You know, the ones that took him in after his last ex-wife kicked him to the curb!
Cheese louise, do we all have such short memories? Yes, the Democrats aren’t perfect. But my gawd, do we want to replace the imperfect with the absolutely horrible?
atdleft
@Chitown Kev: Heh. That would be interesting. And perhaps if the Cali Supremes give us a good decision, we’ll see both states legalize marriage equality this year? That would REALLY make 2009 “The Year of the Gays”! 😀
Chitown Kev
@atdleft:
Actually, I don’t think it matters what their decision is, though the reaction will be different.
If the Cali Supremes uphold Prop 8 then that will create the angry energy for more activism that The Gay Numbers and Chip both cite will be necessary.
If the Cali Supremes toss Prop 8 then that will create a celebratory and exhuberant energy for more activism that The Gay Numbers and Chip both cite will be necessary.
If the Cali Supremes tosses out marriage (gay and straight) altogether and says the state will only do civil unions for the purposes of maintaining equal protection (which I would love to see them do) then…
timncguy
@Scott: I was born and raised in NY State. Southwestern NY about 60 miles south of Buffalo. Whenever asked where I am from, I respond New York State. I always include the “State” so as not to confuse people who think NY is nothing but NYC.
To me, as a former resident of the Southern Tier of New York State, “Upstate” always meant the area of NY “UP” the Hudson River to the north of NYC and didn’t extend any further west than that. But, that’s just me.
Now a question “on topic”. Even if Majority Leader Smith gets the votes needed to pass the legislation, what would STOP Diaz from making good on his threat to turn the senate over to the Repugs control NOW? I’m guessing that Diaz made this threat by saying he would VOTE for the repug for leader of the senate and not that he would change his party affiliation from dem to repug, right? Is there something that STOPS Diaz and his two co-conspirators from forcing a new vote for majority leader now that the legislative session is already underway?
If Diaz can make good on his threat, why would Smith be willing to bring up the legislation even if he had the required votes to get it passed?
Chitown Kev
@Chitown Kev:
will be necessary in New York, that is.
The Gay Numbers
Chitown:
This is the third time tonight someone has managed to have the telepathic abilities to read my thoughts. If you want to know what I think, you may want to actually ask rather than tell me. I am sloppy with my grammar and spellings, but very precise about the arguments I makde. I’ve never made the arguments youare claiming I made about CA.
CHIP
@timncguy:
Diaz can only make good on his threat next session by not voting for Smith as majority leader. It can’t impact the vote in this session. As far as I remember, there are no “votes of confidence” in the NYS legislature by-laws. This isn’t a Parliament.
@Chitown Kev:
I’m not an advocate of “activism”, I’m saying that like everything done in the past 60 years in New York’s capital, a deal will have to be done behind closed doors. This idea of not bringing up for vote a bill that hasn’t been already decided on by the majority party is not something new in NYS. This has been going on for more than half a century.
Also, California has no bearing on how Albany’s legislators will decide.
The most likely reality is this becoming law in 2011. By then the combination of voter enrollment re-shaping senatorial election districts in the suburbs, with the results of the 2010 Census being implemented by the Senate and Assembly both in Democratic hands will lead to more Democrats being elected as Senators, and thus enough votes to pass this by a thin margin in the Senate.
Chitown Kev
@The Gay Numbers:
I am not trying to read your thoughts.
“I will say after Prop 8- there was a sense amongst my friends of greater interest on these issues.”
“I have some friends who are not interested in getting married (they do not intend ever get married and in one case mostly sees guys as fuck buddies) all become more involved and seemed to have a sense of community. I do not know where this energy will go, but it is interesting to see it there.”
My only point is (and I may not have stated it very well) is that the groundswell of “energy” that you called for in New York could very well regenerate after the California Supreme Court renders it’s decision on Prop 8, just as it did las November. I know they are planning celebrations/protests in New York (as well as Chicago). While the Cali Supremes decision, in and of itself, will have no bearing on what they do in Albany, the grassroots energy generated across the country could well generate momentum in the LGBT community in New York to lobby for marriage equality or to make sure that those politicians who do not vote for marriage equality in this legislative session do not win in 2010.
That was my point.
The Gay Numbers
Okay, I understand now. Thanks.
Chris
The Black community is more homophobic than any group out there.
CitizenGeek
@Chitown Kev: But Ruben Diaz is hispanic, and we’re not allowed to talk about homophobes that aren’t white, remember? I expected you would know that rule better than most considering you’re the biggest proponent of it.
CitizenGeek
@Chris: Yes, it absolutely is (in the USA). Apparently I’m racist for acknowledging that. That’s, frankly, news to me.
strumpetwindsock
@CitizenGeek:
I don’t see how this matters except to fucking racists.
Is the problem homophobia, or is it skin colour? If the problem is homophobia then people are not helping change things by pointing fingers and demonizing the African American community.
There’s a good analogy to this I learned about when I was overseas. In East Germany they claimed there were no Nazis there – that Nazism was a capitalist phenomenon and that the Nazis were all in the west (they had some good evidence for this, because a lot of the Nazis DID wind up in government, and even in the U.S. Space Program).
The problem was that they never dealt with the Nazis who were in their country because they were too busy pointing fingers at the west.
Guess what happened? When the wall came down the west had some neo-nazis, but the east had a problem that was much, much worse.