The Gay Empire State

[Lunar]

http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/06/3-senate-dems-to-vote-yes-on-marriage/


And on the remaining steps...
http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/06/parsing-sen-alesi/
http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/06/lanza-still-a-no-but-that-could-change/

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Kruger's probably going to go to jail before they vote on it again, but I guess getting outed will change your mind on things.

[Lunar]

Kruger's probably going to go to jail before they vote on it again, but I guess getting outed will change your mind on things.

Disagree, his court date is waaay past this legislative session, which ends on the 20th

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

So there's only a week left for a vote to happen.

What are the odds Skelos actually brings it up for a vote?

[Progressive]

Does anyone think it's going to pass?

[Verily]

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.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

Twitter is saying Sen. Alesi will vote yes. 2 more needed if true.

[Brittain33]

This is reminiscent of the drumbeat of pro-equality statements leading up to the defeat of the DOMA amendment in Massachusetts several years ago. Create momentum. People know what's right and need to feel free to vote for equality.

[Lunar]

Twitter is saying Sen. Alesi will vote yes. 2 more needed if true.

it's true. thread title updated

[Holmes]

Diaz out of the Minority Caucus, fwiw.

I'm skeptical, but hopeful. If it passes, would it be a failure on the part of the Senate Democratic majority two years ago, or a victory for Cuomo?

[Brittain33]

Diaz out of the Minority Caucus, fwiw.

Important to note it's not the Dem caucus.

[Lunar]

Diaz out of the Minority Caucus, fwiw.

I'm skeptical, but hopeful. If it passes, would it be a failure on the part of the Senate Democratic majority two years ago, or a victory for Cuomo?

Both, but a HUGE Cuomo victory -- nowhere else has anyone got gay marriage passed on the back of Republican legislators flip-flopping to support gay marriage

[Verily]

Not quite true. A bunch of Republican state legislators voted in favor of same-sex marriage in Vermont (of course).

[Lunar]

Not quite true. A bunch of Republican state legislators voted in favor of same-sex marriage in Vermont (of course).

They weren't critical to the passage though, no?

[Holmes]

Not quite true. A bunch of Republican state legislators voted in favor of same-sex marriage in Vermont (of course).

They weren't critical to the passage though, no?

For a veto override, I think... it's been a while, but they were like 2 or 3 votes short of a veto override in the first round in the House, and when Douglas vetoed it, I think some Republicans switched.

One Republican state senator switched to no on the second round, I believe.

[Lunar]

Haha, fine.

But in NYS, the pressures against the Republican legislators is INTENSE. Mike Long has outright said he'll deny the Conservative Party line to any Republican who votes in favor of this, and all of the swing votes on this issue occupy swing suburban districts where the Conservative line is absolutely essential (many of these swing votes won in 2010 by less than the margin that the Conservative line provided).

[Brittain33]

Massachusetts needed 3/4 to stop DOMA from passing at the last attempt, probably a few Republicans in the House were flipped after solidly supporting Romney the first time around.

[Lunar]

But Bloomberg himself has not threatened to withhold support from "no" voters

[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.

[krazen1211]

These people have a history of overcounting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/nyregion/03marriage.html

In Albany on Wednesday, proponents had believed going into the vote that they could attract as many as 35 supporters to the measure; at their most pessimistic, they said they would draw at least 26.

[krazen1211]

Both, but a HUGE Cuomo victory -- nowhere else has anyone got gay marriage passed on the back of Republican legislators flip-flopping to support gay marriage

I wonder if there's a map deal that will protect the NY GOP State Senate from oblivion.

[Brittain33]

These people have a history of overcounting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/nyregion/03marriage.html

In Albany on Wednesday, proponents had believed going into the vote that they could attract as many as 35 supporters to the measure; at their most pessimistic, they said they would draw at least 26.

A similar disaster happened in NJ, too. People are optimistic and think they're going to do well, but once it looks like it's going to fail, loads of people in the middle abandon it and vote no. That's why the momentum strategy is so important--you need to get people to make public commitments in drips and drabs, like the 3 Dems and Alesi today, to ensure that others know it's going to happen and so will go with the flow of yes instead of the flow of now.

[Lunar]

These people have a history of overcounting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/nyregion/03marriage.html

In Albany on Wednesday, proponents had believed going into the vote that they could attract as many as 35 supporters to the measure; at their most pessimistic, they said they would draw at least 26.

That's a silly comparison though -- that was people overcounting votes that were privately said off the record.

All of the current votes counted for gay marriage come from elected officials who have said, on the record and in the press, time and time again, that they will support this bill.

[krazen1211]

These people have a history of overcounting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/nyregion/03marriage.html

In Albany on Wednesday, proponents had believed going into the vote that they could attract as many as 35 supporters to the measure; at their most pessimistic, they said they would draw at least 26.

That's a silly comparison though -- that was people overcounting votes that were privately said off the record.

All of the current votes counted for gay marriage come from elected officials who have said, on the record and in the press, time and time again, that they will support this bill.

Any politician who flips can also obviously flop when pressured by the correct people.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What's up with that guy in Buffalo who is as doomed next election as Cao was? If he's going to try he could make an appeal to Moderate Hero-esque Democrats. If he votes against it he'll just be seen as a typical Republican.