The Gay Empire State

[Smash255]

Does anyone think it's going to pass?

Maybe.  It depends on getting Republicans to support it, and there are 6 or so Republicans who might do so.  But none wants to be the deciding vote - so it may be all or none.  Plus, the Conservative Party has said they won't back anyone who votes for gay marriage in the next election.

I don't think the odds are good, but we'll see.

As long as there is more than one Republican, none of them are the deciding vote--and there has to be more than one. But I agree that they will need at least four Republicans even though technically only three more votes are needed.

There was talk in one of the papers today that the 6 or so on-the-fence Senate Republicans wanted a larger majority before they would vote to change the definition of marriage.  It's not clear that just a two-vote majority would be enough - though I think a bare majority wouldn't.  I really do view it as an all-or-none situation.

Can't find the article, but saw that Charles Fuschillo (my State Senator before I moved) and Kemp Hannon (my current State Senator) were two of the on the fence Republicans.

[Smash255]

How many politicians invoke the advice of their dead mother and vote the other way?

Count one more "yes" from the GOP column

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/nyregion/gay-marriage-issue-burden-for-senates-undecided-8.html?_r=1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does seem like Lanza will be a yes, but the article doesn't say he will votes yes, and was before the other articles which still listed him as undecided.

[Smash255]

LOL I just got a call from the National Organization for Marriage.  It was an automated call asking if I was a registered voter in NY and then if I believe marriage should only be between one man and a woman.

[Smash255]

Great News

When it comes down to it my guess is this will pass with 35 or 36 votes.

[Smash255]

We should all list ways this can go horribly wrong, because that's probably what's gonna happen.

The only thing I think that could go wrong is Skelos could back peddle on holding the vote the same way he did with redistricting reform, but I think he would have way too much pressure to hold the vote, and the outrage against him would be far too large if he didn't.  Even though he will be against it, the fact Skelos doesn't represent a conservative district I think also makes it tougher for him to back peddle away on holding a vote.

[Smash255]

No decision basically seems like "haha no" to me.

Skelos is trying to figure out what Cuomo is going to do. If there is a vote and it fails, the Senate Map is going to the courts. If Gay Marriage cant pass with a 32-30 GOP majority it can not pass with a larger one, so signing a GOP map would be effectively telling Gays and Gay donors to wait until 2023. And that would be fatal for a Cuomo Presidential bid, especially when expectations have been raised so high and the issue is so high profile.

So if Skelos wants to block it the best bet is to not hold a vote. But he doesn't know if that would piss Cuomo off enough to still send the legislative lines off to the courts.

I really don't see how the GOP can make the current map more Republican.  Its already almost as gerrymandered as possible.

[Smash255]

Unless I'm mistaken, Long Island has an all-Republican delegation in the Senate.

Indeed they do after the 2010 election.  I was thinking Foley won reelection.  I guess not.

They could also lose a number of the LI districts they do have.  Martins who narrowly beat Johnson last time around is in a fairly Dem leaning district, and its not like the district could be made safer more GOP without hurting other Republicans, especially considering Hannon's close race in 2008.

[Smash255]

Super Bowl hero warns of 'anarchy' if NY approves gay marriage


http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/16/new.york.gay.marriage.tyree/

Former New York Giants receiver David Tyree's celebrated catch in the closing seconds of Super Bowl XLII was pivotal to his team's victory. Now out of football, he is trying to claim a last-minute win over another foe -- same-sex marriage.

Strahan > Tyree

^^^^^^^^

[Smash255]

Super Bowl hero warns of 'anarchy' if NY approves gay marriage


http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/16/new.york.gay.marriage.tyree/

Former New York Giants receiver David Tyree's celebrated catch in the closing seconds of Super Bowl XLII was pivotal to his team's victory. Now out of football, he is trying to claim a last-minute win over another foe -- same-sex marriage.

Wow, what a dumbass.  Yet another reason to hate the Giants.

Both Strahan and Tisch the owner have come out in support.

[Smash255]

Looks like vote will be delayed until next week at the earliest

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/06/next-week-maybe-for-ny-gay-marriage-vote

[Smash255]

Wait, is Cuomo trading gay marriage for the chance to gerrymander the State Senate? I love the gays as much as anyone, but that sounds like a bad idea.

Don't think so, I think PX is just saying Cuomo should use forcing any maps to go to the courts as leverage. 

Cuomo has already said he will veto any gerrymandered maps, but something that Cuomo might be willing to go for is still likely not going to be as bad for the GOP as a court drawn map.

[Smash255]

cinyc, a thought experiment. Does a law permitting women to walk on public streets with their lower arms or legs uncovered infringe on the religious liberty of orthodox Jews who feel that this is immodest?

I want you to keep that in mind when you think about how same-sex marriage affects other people's religious freedom. It's one thing to talk about not requiring a Catholic church to marry a same-sex couple, which, as I always point out when this comes up, is equivalent to the right Catholic priests enjoy now not to be compelled to marry people who aren't Catholic. It's another if your affinity for conservatism means you define religious freedom on this issue as the right for some people to wish I didn't exist and didn't have equal rights to function in the U.S., and as a compromise they have a right to never see me or deal with me and pretend that this is central element of their religion and I have to bend my life to respect that. Sorry, no deal. That's not religious freedom. Religious freedom governs religion and how it intersects with the government, and no extreme case mentioned has anything to do with gay marriage.

Sorry.  No deal.  People have an absolute right to believe that homosexuality is immoral and ought not exist.  Once you talk about forcing people to accept homosexual behavior by accommodating homosexuals in any way whatsoever without regard to their deeply held religious beliefs, you are effectively stating that the new pseudo-religion of secular humanist multiculturalism - i.e. all cultures and beliefs are equal, as long as you're not a white heterosexual Christian male, then you and your beliefs are worth nothing - trumps all others in the public sphere.   

Why should those with deeply held religious beliefs have to bend THEIR lives to accommodate you?  What makes you so special to deserve special treatment, forcing other people to do things for you against their will?

Massachusetts is dead wrong to force Catholic adoption agencies to place children with gay parents.  Any state that requires the Knights of Columbus to rent a hall to a gay wedding reception or a dressmaker to make a lesbian's wedding dress is essentially enforcing involuntary servitude against those who deeply believe homosexuality is immoral.  But since, as you've implied here, the belief that your lifestyle is immoral simply shouldn't be allowed, so we should all bend over backwards to accommodate you, right?

First of all no one is talking about "Special Treatment", its about EQUAL Treatment.

No one is being forced to bend their lives to accomidate others.  the only ones who are having to do that are those who are currently getting discriminated against because some people want their own personal religious views to be the law.   The bill presented btw by Cuomo already gives the Knights of Columbus and other such groups the right not to rent out their hall.

[Smash255]

What is this new pseudo-religion of why cinyc speaks? Most of the atheism-with-added-megaphones brigade don't especially like multiculturalism (however defined) and more than just a few have made arguments on the subject that are somewhat noisome (and ones that you might approve of, naturally). If you're going to throw a tantrum, then maybe try to get your facts straight (pun intended!) first?

Sneering aside, debates like this are so depressing. I'm sure that it must be possible to articulate the case against this sort of thing without heading off the deep end. If right-wingers can discuss social policy or the economy every bit as rationally as liberals or left-wingers, then why not on issues of this sort? In this case I would disagree with the conclusion, but...

I give up.  I have deleted all of my recent posts in this thread and will not be commenting further, as I am clearly wrong and gay rights activists are always right.

I should know better than to post anything other than supporting gay rights on this website.

When you go on a rant about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, well you are going to have issues.....

[Smash255]

Deals have been struck on the other major issues 9property Tax cap, rent control SUNY Tuition)

The issue on the Marriage equality bill remains the religious protections, which of course is already including in the bill itself and current NY law.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/in-albany-big-three-agree-on-most-issues-except-gay-marriage-vote/

[Smash255]

Despite language in the bill already that has religious protections as well as state law, the religious protection argument is the main excuse used on why no commitment to bring the bill up for a vote has been made, well it appears that additional religious protections have been added.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/albany-leaders-reach-consensus-on-religious-exemptions-for-marriage-measure/?hp#


Of course we were basically down this road before, so lets see if a vote is actually held or if Skelos comes up with another excuse.

[Smash255]

The bill will come to the floor for a vote tonight according to Skelos

http://mobile.newsday.com/inf/infomo;JSESSIONID=9C5820245253E30CE416.3122?site=newsday&view=top_stories_item&feed:a=newsday_1min&feed:c=topstories&feed:i=1.2981913&nopaging=1

[Smash255]

Anyone know around what time it should come to a vote?

The rent regulation, property tax cap is being voted on and discussed now, SUNY bill was earlier.  So shouldn't be all that long.  Link to the live feed is below

http://www.nysenate.gov/live_today

[Smash255]

No sound, suspicious

They called for a short recess earlier, though it is beyond the initial 15 minutes, my guess is they are just finishing up with the recess.

[Smash255]

No sound, suspicious

They called for a short recess earlier, though it is beyond the initial 15 minutes, my guess is they are just finishing up with the recess.

Hope so. Everyone's made up their mind I think. Do you think it will pass?

Yes, I think it will pass 34-28

[Smash255]

Saland has just come out in support:)

[Smash255]

So has my State Senator Kemp Hannon

[Smash255]

Passes 36-26

[Smash255]

Bigoted is flipping out.

[Smash255]

Passes 36-26

Not the final vote though.

Oops my mistake.

[Smash255]

Gisanti also comes out in favor