Although New York's State Assembly today approved a bill to legalize gay marriage by a 89-52 margin, the measure faces longer odds in the State Senate, where Democrats hold a slim 32-30 majority and where several prominent Democrats are likely to oppose the measure.
Governor David Paterson's bill requires 32 votes to pass -- a 31-31 tie would ordinarily be broken by New York's Lieutenant Governor, but New York does not currently have a Lieutenant Governor because Paterson ascended from that position to replace Elliot Spitzer.
The bill, S.4401, has 19 sponsors, all Democrats. A 20th Democrat, Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, is also committed to supporting the measure.
Beyond that, however, things get a bit dicey for the Democrats. Based on recent public statements and press accounts, we count 5 Democrats -- Shirley Huntley of Queens and George Onorato of Queens, Ruben Diaz of the Bronx, Darrel Aubertine of Cape Vincent, and William Stachowski of Buffalo -- as definitively being opposed to the measure. We also count 7 Democrats as undecided, one of whom -- David Valesky of Oneida -- we characterize as leaning toward a no vote.
On the other hand, while no Republican has publicly come out in favor of the bill, we have 9 Republicans who we characterize as undecided (although several are thought to be leaning no). A majority of these Republicans are from Long Island, a swing region in New York state politics.
The most plausible path to 32 votes involves picking up the 20 definite yes votes, plus the 5 Democrats and 7 Republicans that we characterize as truly undecided or leaning yes. Although a clean sweep of these votes would seem unlikely, there are some backup options in the form of 1 Democrat and 4 Republicans who we describe as leaning -- but not definitively -- against the bill. (Note: we characterize Republicans who sponsored S.2056, a 2006 bill that sought to ban gay marriage in New York state, as definite 'no' votes unless there is more recent information to suggest they have moderated their position).
Democrats may take some solace in the fact that, when gay marriage bills were approved by legislatures in states like Maine and Vermont, they tended to pass with slightly more votes than anticipated. Still, based on the most recently available information, I would guess that their odds of securing 32 votes are not better than about one in three.
Our 'whip count' of the 62 State Senators follows below.
YES (20)
7. Craig Johnson, D-Long Island (Port Washington) S.4401 sponsor
14. Malcolm Smith, D-NYC (St. Albans) link
16. Toby Ann Stavisky, D-NYC (Flushing) S.4401 sponsor
17. Martin Malave Dilan, D-NYC (Bushwick) S.4401 sponsor
18. Velmanette Montgomery, D-NYC (Brooklyn) S.4401 sponsor
20. Eric Adams, D-NYC (Brooklyn) S.4401 sponsor
21. Kevin Parker, D-NYC (Brooklyn) S.4401 sponsor
23. Diane Savino, D-NYC (Staten Island) S.4401 sponsor
25. Dan Squadron, D-NYC (Brooklyn) S.4401 sponsor
26. Liz Krueger, D-NYC (New York) S.4401 sponsor
28. Jose M. Serrano, D-NYC (Spanish Harlem) S.4401 sponsor
29. Thomas Duane, D-NYC (New York) S.4401 sponsor
30. Bill Perkins, D-NYC (Harlem) S.4401 sponsor
31. Eric Schneiderman, D-NYC (Washington Heights) S.4401 sponsor
33. Pedro Espada, D-NYC (Bedford Park) S.4401 sponsor
34. Jeffrey Klein, D-NYC (Throgs Neck) S.4401 sponsor
35. Andrea Stewart-Cousins, D-Westchester (Yonkers) S.4401 sponsor
37. Suzi Oppenheimer, D-Westchester (Mamaroneck) S.4401 sponsor
46. Neil Breslin, D-Upstate (Albany) S.4401 sponsor
60. Antoine Thompson, D-Upstate (Buffalo) S.4401 sponsor
UNDECIDED, LEANING YES (1)
55. James Alesi, R-Upstate (East Rochester) link
UNDECIDED OR UNKNOWN (11)
1. Kenneth LaValle, R-Long Island (Port Jefferson) link
2. John J. Flanagan, R-Long Island (East Northport) link
3. Brian X. Foley, D-Long Island (Blue Point) link
4. Owen H. Johnson, R-Long Island (West Babylon) link
8. Charles Fuschillo, R-Long Island (Merrick) link
13. Hiram Monserrate, D-NYC (Jackson Heights) link
15. Joseph Addabbo, Jr., D-NYC (Ozone Park) link
19. John Sampson, D-NYC (Brooklyn) link
27. Carl Kruger, D-NYC (Brooklyn) link
36. Ruth Hassell-Thompson, D-Westchester (Williamsbridge) link
40. Vincent Leibell, R-Westchester (Patterson) link
UNDECIDED, LEANING NO (5)
6. Kemp Hannon, R-Long Island (Garden City) link
24. Andrew Lanza, R-NYC (Staten Island) link
45. Betty Little, R-Upstate (Queensbury) (conflicting reports suggest opposition and that she's 'within reach')
49. David Valesky, D-Upstate (Oneida) (officially undecided; constituent e-mail hints at opposition)
57. Catharine Young, R-Upstate (Olean) link
NO (25)
5. Carl Marcellino, R-Long Island (Syosset) link
9. Dean Skelos, R-Long Island (Rockville Centre) link
10. Shirley Huntley, D-NYC (Jamaica) link
11. Frank Padavan, R-NYC (Bellerose) S.2056 sponsor
12. George Onorato, D-NYC (Astoria) link
22. Martin Golden, R-NYC (Bay Ridge) S.2056 sponsor
32. Rubén DÃaz, D-NYC (Soundview) link
38. Thomas Morahan, R-Westchester (Clarkstown) link
39. Bill Larkin, R-Westchester (New Windsor) S.2056 sponsor
41. Stephen Saland, R-Westchester (Poughkeepsie) link
42. John Bonacic, R-Westchester (Mount Hope) S.2056 sponsor
43. Roy McDonald, R-Upstate (Wilton) link
44. Hugh Farley, R-Upstate (Schenectady) S.2056 sponsor
47. Joseph Griffo, R-Upstate (Rome) link
48. Darrel Aubertine, D-Upstate (Cape Vincent) link
50. John DeFrancisco, R-Upstate (Syracuse) S.2056 sponsor
51. James Seward, R-Upstate (Milford) S.2056 sponsor
52. Thomas W. Libous, R-Upstate (Binghamton) S.2056 sponsor
53. George H. Winner, Jr., R-Upstate (Elmira) link
54. Michael Nozzolio, R-Upstate (Fayette) S.2056 sponsor
56. Joseph Robach, R-Upstate (Greece) link
58. William Stachowski, D-Upstate (Hamburg) link
59. Dale Volker, R-Upstate (Depew) S.2056 sponsor
61. Michael Ranzenhofer, R-Upstate (Clarence) link
62. George Maziarz, R-Upstate (Newfane) S.2056 sponsor
5.13.2009
Whip Count: Gay Marriage Faces Uphill Odds in New York Senate
@ 8:43 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
69 comments
I think some of the politicians who will vote yes want to wait until the last minute, to be sure they aren't stepping on a mine.
Second! Silver medal for me!
Even if it doesn't pass the NY senate, the tide is turning.
*Marriage
Great stuff though!
Anyhow, gay marriage is almost certain to pass in New York within a few years.
Democrats now control the New York Senate for the first time probably since Lincoln was president, and will have the opportunity to undo the gerrymandering that allows Republicans to control half the chamber in such a blue state.
Repubs aren't committing because they know the vote won't even come to the floor unless Malcolm Smith has 32 votes for it. They don't want to reveal they position unless they are forced to (by a vote), in which case IT IS PASSING.
Nate, I just wondering why you label district like Poughkeepsie or Clarkstown as "Westchester." Westchester is a county: as are Rockland (Clarkstown), Poughkeepsie (Dutchess), etc. My senator is Moynihan, and it took me a second to find him. Might I suggest you just label them all "downstate"? A lot of people from downstate New York are peeved enough with the "upstate" label, but calling us Westchester just seems erroneous.
Erm, sorry. Clarkstown is in Rockland. And my state senator is Morahan. Sorry, must have been thinking of some other New York Senator.
Nate, you seem to have expanded the borders of Westchester County quite a bit. There are only three senators from Westchester (Stewart-Cousins, Oppenheimer and Hassell-Thompson), but you've labeled every senator between Albany and NYC as being from Westchester. Is this just a typo, or is there a reason behind it?
Kemp Hannon is my Senator, and he came close to losing his seat last fall against a no-name opponent. Besides the basic equality/progress reasons to vote for it, I would hope he takes that into account in trying to make up his mind.
Suppose it did look like it was going to be 31-31. Might not a strategy be to 'arrange' for someone who doesn't feel he/she can vote for the measure to not show up?
31-30 wins, right?
I really hope this pass!!!
i dont even live in NY, but i know how ppl in nY would feel if it passes.
Nate, you never cease to amaze me. I've been trying to find an analysis like this since the N.Y. House passed the bill. Thanks!
WV: rearants - when a troll posts the same comment over and over
This flurry of pro-gay legislative and judicial activity in the NE strikes me as fallout from prop 8 in CA.
Gotta love the law of unintended consequences !
5 NOs from New York City? Are you kidding me?
Please stop saying "legalize" gay marriage. It isn't "illegal" now -- no one can be arrested for performing or participating in a same-sex marriage (anywhere in the US).
The issue is government recognition of those marriages.
The reason it's important to get the words straight is that it is MUCH easier to argue (in a legislature or a court) for equal recognition of all marriages than to "legalize" anything. To frame the effort in terms of "legalizing" same-sex marriages is to make the whole thing much harder and slower -- and I am speaking as a civil liberties attorney, here.
The more same-sex couples marry, in any kind of ceremony, and in any state, and refer to themselves as "married," the more everyone will know such couples and refer to them as "married" as well, and the sooner the day will come that the public (at least a critical mass) will see the unequal treatment of those families as not only unjust, but ridiculous -- just as it eventually happened for interracial couples (whose unions WERE "illegal" in some states).
5 NOs from New York City? Are you kidding me?Believe it or not, there are several constituencies, especially in the outer boroughs, that can be quite socially conservative. They vote mostly Democratic, yes, but there are still several deeply religious (usually Catholic or Jewish) districts in NYC. In addition, some of them are dominated by a mostly older population. These factors can cause a very progressive city to elect some socially conservative Democratic representatives, especially in heavily gerrymandered districts.
In the words of Charlemagne.. "The battle is undecided, but the war has been won."
I'm not sure why you listed out some neighborhoods in Brooklyn and called others Brooklyn. I know the districts don't make a huge amount of sense, but its helpful for constiuent calls. In any case - here's some help. John Sampson (undecided) represents Brownsville, East New York, and parts of Canarsie. Kruger (also undecided) represents Sheepshead Bay and Mill Basin. Also, I'm surprised to see the rep for Astoria voting no. This is a pretty liberal area, and likely a good target for constiuent calls.
Among the BK yeses, this is probably less important at the moment, but for future reference - Eric Adams represents Park Slope, Prospect Heights, Crown Heights, Windsor Terrace, and Greenwood Heights. Velmanette Montgomery represents Sunset Park, Gowanus, Boreum Hill, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, and Bed-Stuy, into a small piece of Brownsville. Kevin Parker represents Borough Park, Kensington, Flatbush, and East Flatbush. Dan Squadron's district is actually Brooklyn and Manhattan - lower Manhattan (Tribeca, Soho, the East Village and points south) and Brooklyn along the river (Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, Brooklyn Heights, across the Navy Yard into Williamsburg and Greenpoint).
It's slightly misleading to list DeFrancisco as Syracuse and Valesky as Onieda...their districts actually split Syracuse and Onondaga county in half, with Valesky taking part of Madison county too (hence Onieda). I only mention it because someone from Valesky's part of Syracuse might not realize their district stretches that far.
Liberal Hypocrisy Defined: Obama on Gay Marriage (against it); Obama on Gays in the Military (he fires them). Is the Prez a homophobe? Or just a hypocrite?
Consider that Carrie Prejean Ms. CA and the Prez along with HRC have the same views on Gay marriage, yet it is the 21 yo model/pageant queen that is getting all the grief from the Gay Mafia and Leftist clowns.
Obama is no dope. He is also likely a closeted homosexual/bi guy (just ask former lover Larry Sinclair – you can’t ask Donald Young, he was murdered just before the campaign). He knows that despite the agitation of the Hollywood Left as magnified by the MSM, America is far from ready to declare a union between same sex couple "marriage".
Obama is a hypocrite on many levels and a dangerous demagogue. He should fail. And you should want him to.
petekent01 (on twitter)
It might be better to label the soi disant "Westchester" group as "Hudson Valley;" more inclusive and more accurate.
John: New York as a state isn't actually overwhelmingly Democrat. The downstate counties (i.e. the suburbs of New York City) are, and have the bulk of the population, but the upstate area tends to lean Republican, regardless of gerrymandering.
While the fate of "same sex marriage recognition" in the Northeastern US is interesting, I'd opine that what's going on with state budgets is one heck of a lot more important. C'mon, Nate! What sort of political fallout can be expected from the permutations of the entirely fiscal special election in CA next week? You know, the election that only impacts small issues, like education, public safety and infrastructure in the state with a huge Congressional delegation. Leave the Boston-New York-DC axis of self-importance! BTW, after seeing your last "western" political item (the intellectual exercise on splitting Texas), are you even aware of the political schisms that have dominated CA politics? It's more than just the interior vs. the coast. And whatever happened to the intense coverage of the appointment of whoever will be direction the '10 census? And no, I'm not the Mule rider.
This Gay marriage thing has the potential to destroy the Dems in the next cycle. Even the wacko liberal state California had its population reject it.
As legislatures try to shove this down the throats of the people (ahem!), the volk will reject their elected representatives getting so ahead of societal norms that they will rethink the wisdom of electing reflexive liberals to any office.
Marriage as a union between man and woman has been around for 5,000 plus years. You can date the gay Rights movement to Stonewall in the 1970s. I think it only fair that we take a bit more than 30 years to think seriously about whether or not these Gay unions are really the societal equivalent of traditional marriage.
Mostly I think it is about humping and the more perverse form of tea bagging than love.
The Gays can have all the economic rights they want. That's basic fairness but we may not be ready to turn ancient societal norms on their heads because of the agitation of Sean Penn and a bunch of degenerate Hollywood types and those that would suck up to them.
We should not be fooled into thinking this is about Civil Rights (certainly the African American community knows better). This is about the destruction of the moral order and allowing perversion and evil to replace morality and goodness. And it is not the gays themselves that are behind this so much as it is those who wish to destabilize our society and break down traditional relationships to create the conditions where a political revolution would have some real potential. This is part and parcel of Marxist theory.
Just as we justify abortion as a some sort of choice when it involves the killing of a human being, denial of "marriage" to the Gays cannot be made out to be anything less than protection of principals of the natural law that underpin just and righteous societies.
The perversion of Gay Culture is one of the chief reasons we are held up to scorn by Al Qaeda and why they fear and want to destroy our society. Perhaps Obama in Egypt next month would be wise to appease his Moslem brethren by rejecting the "old ways" of equating homosexual lust with the procreative love that can only exist between a man and a woman.
Or maybe he’ll just slip into the head on Air Force One and party with Reggie Love. It’s all cool with Obama!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Petekent, when do you plan on coming out of the closet? It really saddens me to see so many self loathing, gay hating gays out there. If you Haggard/ Craig/ Foley types would just come out, I think you would be a lot happier.
While I don't agree with Pete Kent, I do think he's adequately framed the opposition's stance in the debate.
I'm hetersexual and married, very happily, to my wife. I have several gay friends that are homosexual and joined in partnership or union or whatever... and I just call their spouse "your partner, your wife, or your husband" based on their respective preference... The fact that they aren't technically "married" doesn't really matter in any social setting that accepts them at large.
So it seems to me that battling for the word "marriage" instead of battling for "equal rights" has caused an unneccessary headache for the gay community. Those that accept them at all accept their partnership, regardless of whether the government recognizes is as a "marriage" or not.
What they should - in my opinion - battle for is "civil unions" or "partnerships" which give equal rights to the gay partners that married couples enjoy. All that they lose is a word, and it takes literally the entire argument away from their oponents. As long as the "civil unions" have the exact same rights as a married couple, I don't see what the difference would be or how it would negatively affect the gay community.
Note, I don't oppose gay marriage, I just don't think they'll win that battle... and I think they could win the same rights by merely changing a word, so I don't understand why they choose to fight for that word.
*shrug*
Any chance that going for "some of the marbles" with a civil union bill with all rights equal, like Vermont had?
Better still.
The state could institute civil unions as any recognised lifelong bond between two people, and give all rights inherent to that bond to any recognized union couple. The could allow any two people above the age of 18 to cojoin into a union and be recognized as such... then merely state that any couple that is wed in a recognized church would also be recognized as a union and be given all the rights inherent.
It basically says that if you're married by a justice of the peace - you're a union... if you're married by a church, or upheld as married by a church - you're also recognized as a union...
But the rights from the government go to any recognized union.
It takes "marriage" from the government and gives it to the church... but no special rights are given to a married couple that cannot also be gained by a union - which could consist of homosexual or even asexual couples.
The point is that the gay community could have an easier time by completely bypassing the objections of people like Peter Kent by merely abandoning the word "marriage" and going after the equal rights.
If the church wants control of "marriage" give it to them, just don't let that be the sole means of gaining special rights and privilages under the law...
Dean Skelos is my state senator, and we are on good terms (he once read part of a letter I wrote to him at a bill-signing ceremony).
However, I am sure he did not like what I wrote him about this issue a few weeks ago. He is closely aligned with the local church so he opposes SSM and I was highly critical of his view on this issue.
John is quite correct about the gerrymandering. After the 2010 elections, assuming the Dems retain control of the governor's office and the state Senate (they won't lost the Assembly with their 50+ seat majority), they will capture several more senate seats in 2012. The upstate senate seats are severely underpopulated while the New York City senate seats are severly overpopulated. The state senate added one district (in Brooklyn) in 2002 because they needed to lower the statewide average district's population and not have to dissolve an upstate Republican district.
Long Island's 9 state senate districts, while neither overpopulated nor underpopulated, were carefully (re)drawn in 2002 to protect their Republican incumbents. Until 2007, the GOP held a 9-0 lock in the state senate even while other levels of government were turning purple and blue. Now it is 7-2 and Hannon will surely be next on the hit list after a 2010 redistricting. The aging Owen Johnson in Suffolk will be a big target, too.
Having more Dems in the state senate will make it easier to pass SSM into law. Having a Lt. Governor in 2011 will lower the number of needed senators to pass the bill by one, from 32 to 31.
As more time goes by, the "society will be ruined" argument by the bigoted anti-SSM folks will weaken when we see more and more states continue to function perfectly fine after legalizing SSM, the same way society was not ruined by allowing interracial marriage after the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967.
With regard to Mr. Kent, it's so nice to see that the crackpot conspiracy theorists are being represented by one so eloquent. Begging your pardon for the invocation of Godwin's law, his comments smack of Nazi rhetoric - volk? really?
@Glenn Doty
Gay Marriages have been performed by (some) churches in the US for decades. As such, it is entirely reasonable for these married (in the eyes of their church) couples to insist on equal treatment by the law. Words do matter, as the rights and responsibilities of "Marriage" are legally defined across jurisdictions. They (we) will win the battle, it is just a matter of time.
In fact, the only real losing strategy would be to advocate for the state not recognizing anything as "Marriage" but every "recognised lifelong bond between two people" as a "civil union".
Sooner or later the opposition will get over it and concede that seperate but equal is not equal.
When did Nate's chart from a couple months ago predict New York would accept gay marriage?
NVM....found it.
2009 (now)
Vermont
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Maine
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Nevada*
Washington
Alaska*
New York
Oregon*
2010
California*
Hawaii
Montana*
New Jersey
Colorado*
2011
Wyoming
Delaware
Idaho*
Arizona*
Looks like NY is ripe.
PeteKent...
Since when do we give a shit what Al Qaeda thinks? Oh, right. When it fits our own distorted views. I guess you would prefer a society of the kind that they promote over the one we have here. Sharia, anyone?
Glenn Doty..
If PK is correct about marriage going back 5000 years, no church can lay claim to the term since it predates them. It is just as moronic as claiming the christmas tree as a christian symbol. Just because the church found it convenient in their quest to convert the "heathens" by claiming that evergreen they were using in their solstice celebrations was a symbol of the church's religious celebration, doesn't mean that it is.
The church can call their unions "marriages". I couldn't care less. Really. But the State has no business recognizing them.
The way it should be (IMHO) is that if you wish to qualify for rights, benefits and responsibilities provided and required by the State to a married couple, you get married in a civil ceremony (which can be as simple as registering your union performed in your church). This marriage, of course, should be open to any two consenting adults (or more, but the contract gets more complicated).
I really hope this passes this year. I would be great to have a such a large state issue gay marriage licenses. I was hoping that your analysis would be more optimistic.
The Empire State pride agenda considers several "no" dems to be possible flips. brklyngrl while the Astoria senator may be a pretty liberal district he himself isn't. He is 80 year old and said he is against gay marriage because of religious reasons. He is one of Pride Agenda's targets though and I hope he does change his mind. He is my senator and I am forcing all my friends with the district to contact him.
O Nate btw district 36 is mostly in the Bronx :]
Obama is no dope. He is also likely a closeted homosexual/bi guy (just ask former lover Larry Sinclair – you can’t ask Donald Young, he was murdered just before the campaign). Yes, let's ask him. Take a look at Sinclair's poorly spelled "affadavit to Chicago Police". http://www.larrysinclair.org/
It's confusing, but basically, he accuses an Obama campaign staffer of falsely accusing him, Larry Sinclair, of having had sexual relations with Obama. Weird but irrelevant.
He also accuses Obama of having used crack. However, putting aside the unlikeliness of this, we already know that GWB used cocaine prior to being elected president.
He knows that despite the agitation of the Hollywood Left as magnified by the MSM, America is far from ready to declare a union between same sex couple "marriage".Actually, several states have already recognized gay marriage and this thread is about the chance that another, very large state, very shortly will.
As legislatures try to shove this down the throats of the people (ahem!)...Mostly I think it is about humping and the more perverse form of tea bagging than love. This really says it all, doesn't it?
The perversion of Gay Culture is one of the chief reasons we are held up to scorn by Al Qaeda and why they fear and want to destroy our societySo you agree with Al Qaeda?
Pete, you are full of shit. Same-sex marriage has also been around for 5000 years, or whichever number you want to pull out of your ass. Even our non-human ancestors had equal marriage. Only certain groups of humans at certain times of history have been perverted enough to deny marriage of some folks on account of their genitalia.
The "civil union" argument is moronic. Equal but separate never works. OTOH, renaming different-sex "marriage" to "civil union" is sheer pointlessness.
If "marriage" is a magical word because of Christianity, why isn't there a Christian campaign to deny it from non-Christians? No asshole Christian is trying to force Buddhists to have "civil unions" instead of "marriage". Why not? It's a different religion, and "marriage" is supposedly a magic word that gays can't have because it offends some interpretation of Christianity. What business of Christianity's is it, though? Are Buddhists to be forbidden from marrying because they are going to Christian hell? No! Then why are we allowing idiots to justify forbidding marriage to gay folk for that reason?
Tme marriage problem started in this country when it was founded on the principle of separation of church and state, and yet endorsed a religious rite as part of its legal system.
The same sort of tangle was created by the phrase "all men are created equal" and a Constitution that enshrined slavery.
So the marriage conundrum is not the first pickle the country has fashioned for itself. Either the laws repudiate marriage altogether (doubtful, especially since this would provide ammunition for the wingnuts who are screaming that gays want to destroy marriage) or else they are remade (or reinterpreted actually) to allow two consenting persons, of whatever particular stripe, to marry each other.
@ Valpey and LinCA
I have no idea why you would consider me to be agreeing with Pete Kent. I stated that I do not. If pressed, I would gladly agree that his position is fairly idiotic - though that doesn't progress the discussion.
His position is, as I stated, a fair summary of the position of the opponents of gay marriage.
If you want to fight for years, giving constant ammunition to the republicans (this dumb fight almost certainly was responsible for the republican gains in 2004) then by all means do so... but remember that you're not fighting for rights, you are fighting for a word. I guess I don't think a single word is worth fighting for.
If you want the rights, that is a much more easily won victory... most of the entire argument - as outlined by the republican spokesperson that is Pete Kent - is eliminated by merely fighting for the same rights with a different word.
*shrug*
I'm not a member of the community, so I'm not interested. I worked with and fought with the gay community when they wanted to be protected from harrassment, discrimination, and bigotry (and yes I actually was involved in the political "trenches" on many of these political arguments)... but I don't care enough about the distinction of the word "marriage" to feel it warrents the political capital.
Please read more carefully before lumping me in with another poster just because I don't caustically attack or verbally abuse him (or her).
Glen Doty -
I'm not gay, but anyway, I actually agree with you that "civil unions" which provide all and exactly the same legal and financial benefits as legally recognized marriages would be better than nothing.
In fact, what I would really prefer, would be that the word "marriage" not even be used by governments, but restricted to the religious and personal sphere.
All legally recognized committed personal partnerships between fully consenting adults should be referred to as civil unions by the law.
Having said that, another good thing would be to recognize gay marriage and call it "marriage". It's just a question of giving all my fellow Americans their full rights.
Having "marriages" for straights and exactly equal "civil unions" for same sex couples is better than nothing. But different terminology is still slightly suboptimal.
I request clarification of a couple points in this debate, please:
So far as I know, nothing prevents a church from marrying same sex couples. Why doesn't that confer the legal privileges of marriage in states that have not expressly barred the practice ?
Second, I'm curious how non-same sex couples are defined in states that have CA prop 8 like provisions. If a male has his testicles removed (say, for cancer) is he now a she and the marriage annulled ? How are individuals with ambiguous genitalia treated under the law ? Lads with testicular feminization ? Girls with androgen excess ? Either sex that has undergone a sex change ? Does the state make a medical determination ?
@Susan
I'm not sure about other states, but same-sex marriage ceremony actually is illegal in New York. To be more specific, it's a misdemeanor to perform a wedding ceremony for a couple without a marriage license. The mayor of New Paltz was actually charged with that crime when he performed a bunch of same-sex marriage ceremonies a few years back.
One more possibility, so long as I am thinking about it: Is a pregnant women carrying a boy baby now a man, since she has two testicles in her pelvis ?
@eric
See my above comment regarding the law that prevents churches from marrying same-sex couples in New York.
As for the definition of what makes an opposite marriage (I really do love that term), I don't know what the specifics of California law are, but there's a great op-ed piece in the NY Times that illustrates how crazy the law is on these things across the country: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/opinion/12boylan.html
These are the New Mexico requirements for state marriage. I note no mention of gender:
The cost of a marriage license is $25 - $40), which must be paid in cash.
1. Marriage License information line: 505. 768. 4314.
2. Both applicants need to be present.
3. Both need to be at least 18 years of age.
4. Both need current legal pictured ID, or birth certificate.
5. Both need proof of Social Security number.
6. Couples living in foreign countries need a passport.
7. Parental consent if 16 or 17 years of age.
8. Court order if 15 years of age.
9. No medical exam or waiting period is required.
10. If previously married, the date of divorce or date of spouse's death must be supplied.
11. Marriage licenses are issued and valid immediately.
12. Marriage licenses do not expire.
13. License purchased in any New Mexico county, can be used state-wide.
14. Marriage license must be brought to the ceremony to be signed by two witnesses and the minister.
15. A Justice of the Peace is normally a Magistrate Judge, Municipal Judge, or Probate Judge may perform a ceremony. Including, a District Judge upon request. Any person credentialed by a religious society can perform a marriage in the State of New Mexico.
16. Proxy Marriage: No.
17. Common Law Marriage: No.
18. Cousin Marriage: Yes.
I agree with Glen Doty and have said it before: the state needs to get out of the "marriage" business entirely and just sanction unions that confer legal and economic status on people. Leave "marriage" to the religious volk, err folk.
To reply to a couple of other random idiocies -- the people do not accept this gay marriage business -- their corrupt and ultra liberal legislators and courts do. Even the wacko left wing loons of CA rejected gay marriage.
This is a perilous issue for Obama and the Dems and not just because Obama risks being outed by his male friends, but because he risks alienating so many if he stands with the gays or risks offending the left if he stands against them.
My point about Al Qaeda was an ironic observation meant to point out that it is Liberal US culture that is far more incensing to these fanatics than anything the Conservatives might do, including putting one of their own in a box with a caterpillar!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Glenn,
I can read. I know you don't (fully) agree with PK and I never said you did. I merely stated that if PK was right (and he very well may be) in asserting that marriage has been around for 5000 years, no church can lay claim to it as theirs, and theirs alone. You seem to agree with to "giving" the term marriage to the religious. I couldn't disagree more.
Your position seems to be (but correct me if I'm wrong): Let's placate the bigots and give up our rights to the term "marriage".
From that I infer that you are a proponent of changing all State and Federal laws that currently refer to marriage and changing that to "civil union". You'll also have to issue "civil union" certificates to everyone who happened to get a "marriage" certificate. Because, unless this all gets updated and changed it's only a partial "solution".
PK's position also seems to be that the bigots own the term "marriage". He further seems to believe that nobody else should be allowed use it.
Well, it isn't theirs. They don't own it. As far as I'm concerned, they are free to use it, but separation of State and church requires that they share. I'm not asking them to change the way they perform marriages. I don't even care whether the marriages they perform get recognized by the State as valid. As far as I can tell, nobody is trying to force any church to perform or even recognize SSM.
I'm not willing to cede the term. I am married and like to stay that way. I'm not willing to trade my marriage (which btw. is recognized by State and Federal government) for a civil union.
You are probably correct when you state that the issue was at least partially driving the republican gains in 2004. But I take exception to your use of "dumb fight". The fight isn't dumb, it's a fight against dumb people. There are only two types of opponents to SSM: Bigots and idiots. The bigots we've met. It's the people that claim marriage as their own and don't want to share. The idiots buy into the flawed logic and vote against SSM.
I don't think we'll ever convince the bigots. But we do have a shot at the rest. The best way to educate the uninformed or those that were misled is by showing that the sky won't fall when everyone has equal rights. To do that you have to get equal rights for everyone.
I have a proposal: How about we call a marriage performed in a non-religious ceremony a "civil" marriage. All others can then be "uncivil". Seems fitting.
PeteKent (presumably not to be confused with Pete Kent with a space) said -
I agree with Glen Doty and have said it before: the state needs to get out of the "marriage" business entirely and just sanction unions that confer legal and economic status on people. Leave "marriage" to the religious volk, err folk.text
I have no problem with that. What is with the "volk" thing? Is the implication what it looks like?
To reply to a couple of other random idiocies -- the people do not accept this gay marriage business -- their corrupt and ultra liberal legislators and courts do. Even the wacko left wing loons of CA rejected gay marriage.text
Please see the list of states that recognize gay marriage above.
This is a perilous issue for Obama and the Dems and not just because Obama risks being outed by his male friends,text
I think you have Obama confused with Charlie Crist, front runner for the GOP 2012 nomination.
FYI this straight white male doesn't care whether Obama is "outed" or not.
but because he risks alienating so many if he stands with the gaystext
Almost all of whom already voted against him.
My point about Al Qaeda was an ironic observation meant to point out that it is Liberal US culture that is far more incensing to these fanatics than anything the Conservatives might do, including putting one of their own in a box with a caterpillar!text
So again, you agree with Al Qaeda and believe that they should dictate US policy.
We should avoid doing things that would "incense" them. In other words, we should base our decisions on what they want us to do.
You can't have it both ways.
Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan before the WTC attack, by the way. You should do some reading about Afghanistan.
I would have to agree with PK who implicitly states that the right is far closer in ideology to Al Qeada than the left.
@ Glenn
It's not just a word - marriage is a well established legal relationship and has a ton of case law associated with it.
It's a matter of civil rights, and fights for civil rights are never dumb.
Nate, I'm on the ground in New York working on this and my State Senator, Joe Addabbo, supports this but says there are already 32 no votes and nearly all are unmoveable.
actually, the lack of a lt gov has nothing to do with it. the nys constitution requires a majority of elected senators to enact legislation. lt gov can only break procedural ties.
for a bill to pass the senate there need to be at least 32 affirmative votes. otherwise it fails.
@ Eric
Under marriage requirements listed by the County Clerk's office of bernalilllo county it says, "Applicants must be one female and one male". This is the link to the website: http://www.bernco.gov/live/departments.asp?dept=2315&submenuid=2432#marriage
As for nothing barring churches from marrying same-sex couples, that is true. However churches do not and cannot convey any rights. When a priest is ordained he still needs to be certified to marry people, by the state. It's why priests always say "by the power granted to be by the state of -----". States define marriage and what rights they wish to give married couples.
@putch
for a bill to pass the senate there need to be at least 32 affirmative votes. otherwise it fails.
Wow! Are you absolutely sure of this? I was a NY resident for most of my life and I've never seen this requirement before.
A vote of 31-10 on a bill is insufficient to pass it?
Glenn Doty said...
What they should - in my opinion - battle for is "civil unions" or "partnerships" which give equal rights to the gay partners that married couples enjoy.
Glenn,
That might work at a state level, but groups have compiled a listing of more than 1000 federal laws and regulations that affect individuals in marriage.
One example of a federal regulation that also affects state regulation and/or law is the tax return. If a couple files a federal tax return as a joint return, then the state return must be filed as a joint return. If a couple files a married but separate federal tax return, then the state return must be filed as a married but separate tax return.
So even if all 50 states allowed for SSM, the federal tax regulation on how a tax return must be filed trumps the state law or regulation on filing tax returns.
I had a similar, but somewhat different, twist on this about 30 years ago. One year, if I had filed my tax return with standard deductions, I would have gained about $20 on my federal return. However, if I had filed my tax return with itemized deductions, I would have lost that $20 on the federal return, but gained about $100 on the state return. Since the federal return had to be filed in the same manner as the state return, I filed with itemized deductions on both returns, losing $20 to the feds, but gaining $100 from the state.
Same with SSM - if the state recognizes SSM, you could file a state return as joint, EXCEPT the federal return cannot be filed as joint, as federal regulation won't allow it - the federal return MUST be filed the same as the state return, and vice versa. The federal regulation is based on DOMA, the law that defines a 'married couple' for federal purposes.
Another area of federal law - in any monetary benefit (Social Security, Medicare, federal employee health insurance, pension, etc.), a married couple can get survivors' benefits included in the benefit, and/or include the married partner as joint (health care, as an example). However, since only marriages of opposite sex couples are recognized by the federal government (DOMA), SSM couples cannot get those benefits, nor can SSM survivors get those benefits. Federal law (DOMA) says that they are not married, even if state law says they are.
Just changing the semantics is good, but it doesn't get to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is equality, not close approximation in terms of semantics.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Opus and putch:
From the "Rules of the [New York State] Assembly, Rule III - Bills and Resolutions, Section 5, subsection f:
All resolutions shall be adopted by a majority vote of the members present and voting, provided, however, concurrent resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State or ratifying amendments to the Constitution of the United States and resolutions calling for or leading to the expenditure of money shall be adopted by a vote of a majority of all the members elected to the Assembly.
The way I read it is that if there are 61 members present, a vote of 31-30 would mean the resolution passes, unless it is a change to the state Constitution.
Since S. 4401 is "AN ACT to amend the domestic relations law, in relation to the ability to marry", it apparently is NOT a change to the state constitution, therefore a majority of members present should be sufficient, and thus a 31-30 vote would pass the bill, if 61 members are present when the vote is taken. The question is, how to (legally) keep that one member off the floor when the vote is taken.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
LinCA.
My position has nothing to do - in my opinion - with placating biggots. It has to do with one central question:
What do you want to accomplish?
If you want to defeat biggotry, then by all means take them head on... But if you want to ensure equal rights, then make your strategy based on equal rights and ignore the biggots... they're gradually becoming extinct anyway.
As for the complexities between federal and state law goes... that is just as much of a difficulty in fighting for the word "marriage" vs. fighting for actual equal rights... the advocacy would naturally address that whichever fight you choose.
*shrug*
:)
Oh, and the conservative argument that marriage has been an institution of the church for (insert time frame here) would be irrelevent if it only applied to Christianity. They therefore must accept it as a religious ceremony, equally applicable to Christianity, Judism, Islam, Budhism, etc... Which would actually be quite ironic. But government claiming it's the choice of a religious institution to assign the designation of a couple as "married", though any couple legally declared as "unions" get all rights and priviledges etc... ad nausium...
would probably be suitable for enough conservatives that the gay community could win the rights they want much more quickly.
I consider myself a pragmatist.
:)
The Democratic Senator, from ASOTRIA of all places, must be made to pay for this!!
I will move to Astoria and challenge him in a primary myself if I have to.
@m,
Thanks!
I still am left to wonder, if a person walks up to the state clerk and says "I am a (wo)man," on what basis is the clerk to dispute it ?
Glenn
To answer your question: The goal I would like to accomplish is: Equality for all.
You can't achieve equality by allowing one group to have different rights than another. And by "giving" the term "marriage" to the religious bestows a right upon them that is denied to others. In addition, since there are, according to MiM above, over 1000 laws and regulations that affect marriage and the individuals in them, to achieve equality under a construction other than marriage would require amending all those laws and regulations. In the process you would have to change the status of all people that were married outside of a church. The pragmatist in me suspects that there is an easier way (mind you, not easy, just easier). The goal therefore must be marriage equality for all.
Unless there is no other way, I'm not in favor of going the route of civil unions (anymore). I think it was a useful path to test the waters or to get people accustomed to the idea that there are gays living amongst us (gasp!). But it is in essence only a small first step with which you essentially establish a class of second rate citizens. This goes against the stated goal.
We are at a point where some states are ready to adopt SSM. I'd prefer this to happen via public referendum or legislative action but, since this is an equal rights issue, will gladly accept court intervention.
The question then becomes: Which states are ready? The answer to that question is a little bit trickier. But if there is a decent chance to get SSM passed, shooting for civil unions will be a step backwards. Even if it means that you will lose some fights, going forwards for full equality is the best option (IMHO).
Trying to appease those that are not interested in equal rights in the hope that a few of them will accept your terms of surrender is placating to the bigots.
To address a different point in your post; I doubt that is very likely that bigots are "gradually becoming extinct". They are an entrenched bunch and as I mentioned before, I don't think we'll ever convince the bigots. We may have a shot at the followers. As an example; I believe that the fight against prop 8 was lost by failing to dispel the lies and misinformation. When talking to people about prop 8 and countering the arguments that they were parroting from their church leaders, it wasn't hard to convince them to switch positions (not all did, but some).
Just to clarify a bit, where LinCA wrote In addition, since there are, according to MiM above, over 1000 laws and regulations, those are just FEDERAL laws and regulations, and do not include any state and/or local laws and/or regulations.
An example of a local regulation would be like one that Richmond, Virginia had as recently as the late 1970s, to wit that apartment rentals could not be made to non-related, same sex tenants, no matter if the tenants were college students, business people using the apartment as a temporary base of operations while on extended business trips to Richmond, or any other reason. If the tenants were related by blood (but not including in-laws) or adoption, then an apartment could be rented to such a couple.
One result of that city ordinance is that an unusual number of apartments built while that ordinance was on the books were one-bedroom apartments. Families thus had a much smaller market of apartments to choose from if they had a child (or two or more) and wanted to move to a two or three bedroom apartment. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that when supply is short, the price has a tendency to rise. Thus those families faced a situation of lack of available apartments, and following the 'law of supply and demand', the price of the more than one bedroom apartments was higher than it should have been.
The result? Even families not involved in the fight for SSM were detrimentally financially affected by that ordinance. And that financial penalty didn't disappear the moment the city council repealed the ordinance - apartments are not built in a single day, or week, or month. The relative over-supply of one bedroom apartments, and the relative dearth of multi-bedroom apartments, existed for several years after the ordinance was repealed.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
My old boss introduced my former longtime spouse to a large group in Texas, but could not remember the name "partner," and so called him my "husband." My old boss' parents could not be married because they were a longtime interracial couple and the law did not change until after her father became a widower.
My "partner" and I were married in Canada before Massachusetts allowed gay marriage. Although we could not be in a Roman Catholic Church, we were married in a church and a Catholic priest served as our ring bearer.
We live in America where we proclaim "equal justice" and "equal opportunity. It has been a long time coming.
@ Mike in Maryland
Thanks for the info,Mike.I'll sleep a little easier tonight.
Lin CA
I respect you for your tenacity, and I genuinely respect your position... But as I stated I just don't feel that surrendering the term "marriage" constitutes enough of a loss to be worth the political capital to fight for it.
By fighting that battle, you lose some of the political capital to implement goals like health care reform, greenhouse gas mitigation, and fiscal sanity... These are all more important to me than the word "marriage", if I feel that the rights can be bestowed another way.
When VT instituted civil unions, they merely added one line to state that all recognized rights and priviledges given to a married couple must also be bestowed on a unionized couple... and that took care of all of the thousands of laws, regulations, tax loopholes, local codes, etc.
Again, I do agree that you can win the fight you are looking to fight... but it will be tougher and expend a lot more political capital than a fight merely to get the gay community the rights that they want. *shrug*.
I guess I want to use that political capital for what I feel are more important fights.
I live in SC. We'll get legally recognized gay marriage ~50 years after hell freezes over. But we could probably get a civil union law passed within 2 decades... *shrug*
Society is changing, as it always has. Republicans will fight, cry, and throw hissy fits (as they always do) and ultimately lose (as they always do). We might not win equality in New York this year, but people are wanting it more and more, everywhere. We've reached the tipping point in New England. New York and New Jersey are next in line. Minnesota, Illinois, California, and the Pacific NW after that!
@ Glenn Doty
I just don't feel that surrendering the term "marriage" constitutes enough of a loss to be worth the political capital to fight for it.
By fighting that battle, you lose some of the political capital to implement goals like health care reform, greenhouse gas mitigation, and fiscal sanity.
You're talking about two different battles fought by a different set of protagonists.The battle for gay marriage is being fought state by state and has nothing to do with Obama's program for congressional action.So there is no expenditure of political capital.
Granted this will change when the issue of voiding DOMA arises.But I think (hope?) that has been put on the back burner in the expectation that it will be an easier fight to win as more and more states legalize gay marriage.
Glenn,
I understand and respect your position. For SC and some other States aiming for civil unions for same-sex couples may be the only viable path to any semblance of "equality" in our lifetime.
For me, that just isn't quite good enough, but I will support the position and effort taken by the local GLBT community. If there seems to be consensus on a local level that the civil union route is the "better" way to go as part of a strategy to get to full equality I can have peace with that. I realize that each area is different and also that there may not be a community consensus within that area.
It's a equal rights issue. Just as voting rights and segregation are. So, until the rights are equal , there will be an issue.
Then there is the other part of the equation that is about religious intrusion into peoples lives. I think my position on the use of the term "marriage" is abundantly clear. It is in the same vane as my repulsion at the despicable endorsement of religion that has been perpetrated by the government by adulterating the pledge of allegiance ("one nation under god" - we're not) and US currency ("in god we trust" - not all of us do). Both were changed in the fifties (1954 and 1955, respectively) to placate the religious right. I will do what I can to prevent further encroachment on the rights of others.
Don't get me wrong. Everyone has the right to practice their own religion. I just like them to keep their religion out of my life. In other words: "Everyone's freedom of religion includes my freedom from religion".
LinCA,
Great posts, including the last one. As an atheist, I abhor having god on the money and in the Pledge. I don't know if they will come off either one (although the Pledge stands a better chance due to Mike Newdow) in my lifetime.
One thing to consider is what if the SCOTUS had thought of civil unions when they decided the Loving v. Virginia case, and allowed interracial couples to merely "civil unionize" instead of marry? Looking back, doesn't that seem pretty silly? Civil Unions are a rebirth of "Separate but equal (NOT!)" which we got rid of 50 years ago.
Once more and more states allow SSM, and we see how society is not falling apart with these newly married couples, there will be mounting pressure to repeal DOMA. It may take several same-sex couples legally married in one state and moving to one or more states which explicitly disallow SSM to accomplish this, like a class-action version of Loving v. Virginia. It will happen one day, hopefully within my lifetime (and I am not married and not gay).
Concerning the statement that NY presently has no Lieutenant Governor to break a tie, is that true? I thought I'd read somewhere that Patterson, despite taking the Governor's job on Spitzer's resignation, also keeps his Lt. Gov. position. (Why not? It's not that there's any work to do in that job.) Is that true? If it is, he could vote to break a tie.
Post a Comment