The news channel NY1 today conducted a poll of New York's 62 state senators on pending legislation to legalize gay marriage in the Empire State, which was approved by the State Assembly but faces longer odds in the more conservative Senate.
Six senators who we had previously classified as undecided told NY1 they were planning to vote no. They are:
Kenneth LaValle, R-Long Island (Port Jefferson)The loss of the three Long Island Republicans -- LaValle, Flanagan and Fuschillo -- is a pretty big blow to gay marriage's chances, as is that of Carl Kruger, a Brooklyn Democrat. Little and Young were thought to be longshots for yea votes and it is less surprising that they have now come out against gay marriage explicitly.
John J. Flanagan, R-Long Island (East Northport)
Charles Fuschillo, R-Long Island (Merrick)
Carl Kruger, D-NYC (Brooklyn)
Betty Little, R-Upstate (Queensbury)
Catharine Young, R-Upstate (Olean)
But, there is some good news for advocates of gay marriage too. Three Republicans who we had previously classified as no votes now tell NY1 they're undecided:
Thomas Morahan, R-Westchester (Clarkstown)That makes the count 20 yea votes and 28 nay votes, with 14 senators undecided. Gay marriage will require 12 of the 14 undecided votes to pass.
John Bonacic, R-Westchester (Mount Hope)
Roy McDonald, R-Upstate (Wilton)
If this were an exercise in flipping coins -- and you had to come up with heads at least 12 times in 14 tosses to pass gay marriage, its odds of passing would be extremely long: about 150-to-1 against. However, that is of course not the way that politics works. People's votes are not independent from one another -- instead, legislators they may look to leadership or their colleagues to determine their own vote. Moreover, it may not be safe to assume that those who claim to be undecided on gay marriage are 50:50 shots to vote for it. A senator like Bonacic, who cp-sponsored a 2006 bill to ban gay marriage, might be reluctant to come out publicly in favor of the bill until the last possible moment. On the other hand, one wonders what some of the Democrats who claim to be on the fence, particularly those who hail from areas where most of their constituents approve of gay marriage, are waiting for.
Nevertheless, Democratic senator Thomas Duane on Monday told the Daily News that Democrats have the 32 votes they need; Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith was more reserved in his assessment.
29 comments
@Nate "But, there is some good news for advocates of gay marriage too."
That doesn't sound like the last sentence of an article to me, did you accidentally cut it short?
WV: balls. that one's self-explanatory.
The "There's more" link to exand the article is not working here.
Nate, if it passes, will you gay-marry me?
Something seems to be wrong with your blog software--not only is the "There's more" link not showing up, but only 3 of the 5 newly discovered nay votes are showing up in the summary. It's as if the summary is no longer just the first few paragraphs of the full article.
Clicking on the "comments" link does, however, seem to get you the full article.
I just clicked on the article title and it took me to the separate page with the whole article. The "There's More" link wasn't even there. A few typos too.
Doesn't seem very hopeful, although I'd be interested in a little more in depth research on this (hey... I know you're busy). I would especially like to know a little bit more about where Thomas Duane is coming from with those numbers. Just talk? Behind the scenes wheeling and dealing?
The New Hampshire Senate passed the revised gay-marriage bill this morning and the House of Representatives will vote on it this afternoon.
Should it pass (as is likely as it failed to pass a few weeks ago by only 2 votes),Governor Lynch will sign it as early as this evening!
Do supporters need 32 votes?
What if some of the "no" or undecided senators don't show up? Is it possible the "yes" side could win simply if the undecided and soft no folks stay away?
Hew hampshire house approves bill. http://www.wmur.com/politics/19644417/detail.html
For what its worth, Bonacic is not "Westchester." His district encompasses Delaware, Sullivan, Orange, and Ulster counties. That covers a very interesting swath of territory. Some of it in Orange may be the far reaches of "New York Metropolitan Area." Other parts are very conservative, rural areas. Others, like Ulster county, have trended more democratic.
For some people, "Upstate" may only be once you get either north or due west of Albany. But the Catskill region certainly isn't like Westchester.
@ Seththe Law Geek
Yes.Only a majority of the voterss (not the members) is needed.
Absentees Welcome!
Dick Cheney is now more officially progressive on Gay marriage thn Obama!
Obama has the same position on Gay Marriage as Carrie Prejean, the much villified Miss California. Why won't Perez Hilton pick on him?
There are a lot of people disgusted with Obama and his campaign of lies and deception.
As a another for instance have you noticed that Obama is suddenly proud of his Muslim heritage?
http://tinyurl.com/q3bjtk
How do admire a man who is so manipulative and deceitful?
petekent01 (on twitter)
"On the other hand, one wonders what some of the Democrats who claim to be on the fence, particularly those who hail from areas where most of their constituents approve of gay marriage, are waiting for."
I should trust that they're waiting for logrolling. If this is important to Governor Patterson and the legislative leadership, then they should be prepared to yield on something that is important to the constituents of the fence-sitters. Even though this is a just cause and supported by thin majorities, it could well be the sort of vote that haunts legislators at the next election if their local critics are angrier than the supporters are happy. Maybe that's not the kind of headache that they appreciate without an extra bike path or crime lab to bring home to their voters.
PeteKent said...
"Dick Cheney is now more officially progressive on Gay marriage than Obama!"
Sorry, but NO.
President Obama is for FULL FEDERAL BENEFITS, i.e. Social Security Survivor Benefits, etc., for gay couples, exactly the same as married straight couples.
Cheney is certainly NOT for Federal Recognition or Federal Benefits. He wants to "leave it up to the states." This is akin to leaving abortion rights "up to the states."
Don't be so disingenuous.
David in Boston said...
Don't be so disingenuous[, PeteKent].
Nah, he's got to go with what he knows. Blatant fabrication, spitting in the eye of reality, and calling white black isn't just his strong suit. Besides the occasional cynical soothing platitude, it's pretty much all he's got.
@Mike: Back off, he's mine!
Dave in Boston:
I think you must be mistaken about Obama and the federal benfits. As far as I know he has done thing on that.
Obama talks in that soothing way of his but has only one agenda in mind and it has nothing to with expanding the people's rights. He is a fascist aiming to take over all ou lives and make us live according to his dictates.
About the only thing he'll let you have is an abortion!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Hey, I hate to admit it, but PeteKent is right about Dick Cheney being more progressive than Obama on gay marriage:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23181.html
In Cheney's own words: "...freedom means freedom for everyone. ...As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay, and it is something have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish."
A weird speech, to be sure.
Pete Kent- you seem to enjoy getting on your knees and sucking Cheney's dick. That's about all you're good for.
Cheney may say he's in favor of limited gay rights now that he's out of office, but when he was commander in chief (let's not kid ourselves about who wore the pants in that administration) he did everything in his power to demonize the LGBT community.
It feels like Cheney is only doing this to undercut Obama, which seems to be his MO of late. He was an elusive, secretive man for 8-years, now you can't turn on the tv without seeing that icy, terrifying visage.
I think 10kZebra hit it on the head.
And I'm pretty sure Nate will be marrying me when the NY senate passes this same-sex marriage legislation. The rest of you can keep dreamin'. ;)
Anyone who's been paying attention to Kruger knew he'd vote no. It's not a surprise at all.
Morahan represents Rockland and part of Orange, not Westchester.
Kruger votes against everything good: marriage, tolls, congestion pricing. And he supports Atlantic Yards. Ugh.
Bob X and Robbie, you wish. I'll be sure to send you photos from the wedding, though.
The lose of the 3 LI republicans is a big deal. Any of their votes would pressure Brian Foley to vote yes. It surprises me though.
LaValle represents the eastern end of LI which includes the Hamptons, it isn't a religiously conservative district and I haven't seen polls of the district itself, but its a fair guess to say the district is a yes. Also the Assemblyman. 1 D 1 I 1 R, who encompass the district LaValle represents all voted yes.
If LaValle doesn't vote yes I don't see the bill passing :/. People will withhold votes if they feel like the bill will fail. In a roll call vote he votes first and his district is probably one of the safest for a republican to vote yes form. I hope those lobbying in East LI can change his mind.
Hey m:
I'm unfortunately not surprised about LaValle. Just because he represents the Hamptons and the East End doesn't mean he has those voters. Most of the Manhattanites don't have their permanent residences out here (I'm in his district). The people who do live here are the last semi-rural and blue-collar folks left on Long Island: farmers, fishermen, people who can date their family's time here to the time of the earliest colonies.
Take a look at NY1's count for Obama (Tim Bishop's district): he won, but by a much slimmer margin than most other districts on LI. And NY1 is bigger than just LaValle's district.
I wish it wasn't the case, but I'm not terribly surprised LaValle swung no...even though I know me and my friends wrote him with our stories.
The bill is going to pass. Some of those announced "no" votes are for civil unions and will flip on the floor. Gay couples can be married legally in New York anyway. They just have to cross almost any border to get the license (Canada, CT, VT, MA). The only gay people the bigoted Senators are stopping from marrying are those too disabled to travel.
By the way: what's Mike Bloomberg produced on this issue after the buckets of money he gave to Senate Republicans? We'd have same-sex marriage in NY if he hadn't appealed the only good decision from a court we ever got on the issue. And he cited Leviticus in t he court arguments against it! Can't believe any gay person would vote for him.....
@Nate:
...it's odds of passing would be extremely long: about 150-to-1 against.
Nooooooooooo!
"it's" means "it is."
The correct possessive form of the third person neuter pronoun is "its."
Sorry to be a duckhead, butt this is a common error, and my purpose in life is to snuff it out.
(One commenter got it bass-ackwards, typing "its" when s/he meant "it's." That's further evidence of the Law of Conservation of Apostrophes.)
"butt this is a common error"
LOL! There is also a law of conservation of typos: anyone who posts to correct a typo is bound to commit another.
Dems may have just lost control of the Senate (Google it, but GOP just staged a coup today). How does that affect your outlook?
Hopefully, we can pull this off. NY approving is the next best thing to CA in terms of avalanche potential nationwide.
Post a Comment