About
The Albany Project seeks to return New York State Government to its rightful owners - the people.

Getting Started at the Albany Project

New York Blogwire



This belongs to you. Take it back...

Buffalo News: Alesi to support Gay Marriage bill

by: Amherst Guy

Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 10:57:32 AM EDT


A number of things from today's Buffalo News of interest:

Poll shows 53% in N.Y. backing gay marriage:

Senator Alesi is said to be supporting the bill:

"I probably will be making a public statement somewhere in the near future," said Sen. James S. Alesi, a Monroe County Republican who represents part of Rochester. Insiders say he is one potential vote for the bill.

With no hands left to grab their Senators by the unmentionables with, the Republicans are giving up on this issue:


Opponents believe that advocates of same-sex marriage will need to get at least four Republican senators to back the bill. "Even if we did know, we wouldn't say," Duane said of Senate Republicans who might cross party lines.

Senate Republicans say the issue, unlike the budget, is highly personal and will be up to rank-and-file lawmakers to decide on their own.

The Conservative Party, on the other hand, is still fighting:

Those who cross party lines can write off future support from the Conservative Party, warned the head of the small but influential political group.

"This is a line-in-the-sand issue for me," party Chairman Michael R. Long said Monday.

Long, who questioned the accuracy of the Siena poll's findings, said the legislation is about "destroying the sanctity of marriage." He said that it also would lead to higher costs for employers who will have to expand pension and insurance benefits for gay workers who marry.

But overall, the insiders are optimistic:

"Knowing what I know today, I believe this governor will be able to sign a marriage- equality bill into law this summer," said Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, the main gay rights lobby organization in New York.

"We'll have a majority with a few votes to spare," predicted State State Sen. Thomas K. Duane, an openly gay Democrat from Manhattan.

Also, as we probably guessed, the article gets on the record statements from 2 moderate Buffalo-area Senators, Stachowski (D) and Maziarz (R), as against the bill.

Amherst Guy :: Buffalo News: Alesi to support Gay Marriage bill
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I think its funny (4.00 / 3)
that Duane's policy on Republican votes is effectively "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

Also, Mike Long apparently is wildly out of touch. I understand opposing gay marriage, but I can not understand not allowing people to designate their partners on their insurance policies and pensions. Neither can most people - while the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, the majority of Americans have supported these benefits for years. Many companies already do this anyways.


Publicly, or actually? (0.00 / 0)
[I think its funny that Duane's policy on Republican votes is effectively "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".]

How many of his Republican colleagues has Sen. Duane asked privately?  Whatever your answer, the next question is, "How do you know?"


[ Parent ]
That is not Sen. Duanes policy or statement at all! (0.00 / 0)
The Senator said if we did know Republicans who would consider their support we would not tell.  That is an important strategy and very smart of Duane as it would protect those Republicans from being targeted and barraged by opponents. I do not see the need to ridicule Duane over that statement.

[ Parent ]
The article said: (0.00 / 0)
Opponents believe that advocates of same-sex marriage will need to get at least four Republican senators to back the bill. "Even if we did know, we wouldn't say," Duane said of Senate Republicans who might cross party lines.

you wrote:

I think its funny
that Duane's policy on Republican votes is effectively "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

That sound like a jab at Duane to me?


[ Parent ]
wasn't intended to be (0.00 / 0)
it was one of those random things that I found humorous, because it relates to gay rights.

Nothing to do with Duane.


[ Parent ]
One down, three to go (0.00 / 0)
We will need at least three or four Republicans in order to pass the bill.  There are at least two of the "three amigos" and at least one other Democrat who appear to be voting no.

Do we know how many Dems are voting no? (0.00 / 0)
I'm aware of Diaz and Stachowski as planned no votes.  Who else? (Who's the other amigo voting no?  Espada?  Kruger?)   I've also heard Valesky and Aubertine mentioned as possible no votes.  We could be down as many as five or six.

[ Parent ]
Wow! (0.00 / 0)
The "three amigos" (Diaz, Espada and Kruger) are near-certain "no" votes, as is Onorato.  I didn't know about Stachowski, Valesky and Aubertine, but then I live in NYC.

[ Parent ]
Onorato too? (0.00 / 0)
I know Addabbo is on the fence, but he's been fairly supportive of LGBT rights in the past.

but Addabbo is being lobbied by alot of people in this district to vote no on this.  


[ Parent ]
Aubertine is a No (0.00 / 0)
See this Article

"The Senator will not be supporting this bill. He will vote against it," said Aubertine spokesman Drew Mangione.

He voted against it in the Assembly a couple years ago.


[ Parent ]
Valesky is a No also (0.00 / 0)
See this Article

Valesky opposes same-sex marriage and said he would vote against Paterson's bill. He favors civil unions instead.

Both articles are very short and worth a glance.


[ Parent ]
My wife and I have been lobbying Brian Foley very hard on this! (0.00 / 0)
We are doing all we can to make sure he understands how important this is and the ramifications of not supporting the extension of civil rights to all New Yorkers.  We will keep up the pressure.

An open letter on the subject (0.00 / 0)
Not long ago, I sent a letter to an elected official who was wrestling with how to vote on marriage equality.  Below is a slightly edited version of that letter:

*******************************

The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission recently released a report on their civil union law.  That law was theoretically designed to guarantee equal rights to same-sex couples united under this civil union law.  It was supposed to be the best possible civil union law ever.

It failed, and it doesn't take much to understand why it failed.  As the report states, "the provisioning of the rights of marriage through the separate status of civil unions perpetuates the unequal treatment of committed same-sex couples."  In other words, the same problems encountered in education under the "separate but equal" status - problems dealt with in the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS, confront same-sex couples.

In addition, our society has faced similar problems with extending marriage beyond "traditional" boundaries.  The 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia ended legal miscegination, which had been a "tradition" in most states for most of their history.

I have many friends and acquaintances who say, "I'm all for equality, but do they have to call it marriage?"  There are many, many people who have a deeply-held religious view of the sacrament of marriage, and believe that if the legal contract called marriage is extended to same-sex couples it will dilute, or even desecrate, that sacrament.  One solution is to take government out of the marriage business, by replacing the word "marriage" in our laws with something else ("legal unions," perhaps?).

Regardless of what we call it, however, the legal contract that is called "marriage" under our laws is completely separate from the religious rite also called "marriage."  We need to keep that in mind as we debate changing the law.

Several years ago, I met a young woman at a conference in Florida.  She was newly married, in a Catholic ceremony, to a man who, she said, had been married for fifteen years and was divorced.  I asked her how he could get married in a Catholic church, and she told me that his first marriage was a civil service, not performed by a Catholic priest, so the Catholic church didn't recognize it - or the legal divorce.  This makes perfect sense to me.  Any church can determine what it considers to be a marriage, and refuse to recognize anything that doesn't meet the church's standards.  Changing the legal definitions doesn't change a church's right to run its own business.

Right now, there are many, many legal contracts that are called "marriage" under the law but that are not recognized by a variety of religious groups.  Changing New York state law to extend that legal contract to same-sex couples will not alter the religious groups' right to define marriage as they see fit, and to recognize only those marriages.  In other words, there is no infringement on religious freedom.

The legal contract we generally refer to as "marrage," by whatever name, carries with it a wide variety of rights and responsibilities that make life better for those who enter into such contracts.  Between New York state and the federal government, there are about two thousand specific rights and responsibilities.  The best estimates say that over one million New Yorkers are denied an equal opportunity, simply because their natural orientation is homosexual.  Continuing to deny equality to these people not only obstructs the natural progression of civilization, it also goes against the American ideal for which we, as a society, have been reaching for over two hundred years.

I would never ask you to alter your religious views, or to oppose the religious views of your constituents.  I am asking you, however, to live up to the American concept of the separation of church and state, specifically on this one issue that will have no effect on any church, but will merely allow over a million New Yorkers to get the equal treatment that is the American ideal.


"Conservative" Party - LMAO (0.00 / 0)
The ehm, ehm, "Conservative" Party endorsed almost all Republicans and Democrats that voted for the Assembly bill.

Michael Long and his  "Conservative" (LMAO) party have no credibility anymore.


For us out-of-staters (0.00 / 0)
Does anyone know of -- or is anyone willing to compile -- a comprehensive list of all Senators and their positions on the bill (if known)?

Alesi Is A Huge Gain For Us (0.00 / 0)
Jim Alesi was a Co-Sponsor of the "Defense Of Marriage Act" and voted againgst the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act. If Jim Alesi is waffling on this issue, we have a good chance at passing Gay Marriage this year.

Not if all the Gang of three (0.00 / 0)
plus Aubertine and Valesky plus possibly of Addabbo and Foley voting no that makes seven no Democrats plus Onorato would be eight and Stachowski nine!  That leaves only 23 Democrats yes and would require nine Republicans, eight more than Alesi.  Now, I have been reading that Alan Van Cappelle thinks he has about twenty eight yes votes now so if true, than more than half these reported no have indicated something else to the ESPA.

[ Parent ]
Stach's not a maybe (0.00 / 0)
the Buffalo News article has a statement. He's a no.

[ Parent ]
There is the break. The Gang of three are not on this (0.00 / 0)
That would put Espada and Kruger in a yes and Foley and Addabbo as a maybe and that would be the 28 yes votes Van Capelle feels he has as of now!

[ Parent ]
Never said Stach was a maybe (0.00 / 0)
the only maybe according to everyone's posting on this thread so far is Foley and Addabbo.  There are seven firm Dem NO votes as per all postings here but read below where the Gang of three are not together on this issue!

[ Parent ]
Addabbo is a yes (0.00 / 0)
He may not be saying it publicly, but ... let's just say I would be extremely surprised if Addabbo voted no.

[ Parent ]
Espada is a co-sponsor of the gay marriage bill! (0.00 / 0)
So it looks like the gang of three isn't sticking together on this one.  Anyone know about Kruger?

http://blogs.timesunion.com/ca...


There is the break. The Gang of three are not on this! (0.00 / 0)

That would put Espada and Kruger in a yes and Foley and Addabbo as a maybe and that would be the 28 yes votes Van Capelle feels he has as of now!

[ Parent ]
Espada -- a yes? Seriously??? (0.00 / 0)
Yup -- he's a co-sponsor, all right.
Wow!  Whoda thunk it?

Regarding Carl Kruger, where did you hear that he's in the "yes" column?  Do you have something?  Obviously, you're right about Espada, so I'd love to see something concrete (or at least asphalt) on Kruger.  I know Liz Krueger (with an "e" after the "u") is a co-sponsor, but that was expected.

For those who want to keep track, it's S.4401.


[ Parent ]
The Albany Project

Please take my Blog Reader Project survey.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


NY blogs

Politics

Adirondack Almanack
Buffalo Geek
Buffalo Pundit
Capitol Confidential
Daily Gotham
Daily Politics
DMI Blog
DragonFlyEye
Empire Page
Empire Zone
Gothamist
Gotham Gazette
Group News Blog
Jason Gooljar
Left of the Hudson
Living In Dryden
Lost In The Ozone
McHugh Watch
Nassau GOP Watch
Planet Albany
Politicker NY
Politics on the Hudson
Reform NY
Rochester Turning
Room 8
Simply Left Behind
Take19
The Community Alliance

Think Tanks

Brennan Center for Justice
Citizens Budget Commission
Citizens Union
Drum Major Institute
Fiscal Policy Institute
New Democracy Project
Progressive States

Organizations

Citizen Action
Citizens for Better Government in New York
Common Cause
New York Citizens for Clean Elections
Progressive States Network
>
National Blogs

Politics

AmericaBlog
Crooks and Liars
DailyKos
Digby
Eschaton
Firedoglake
MyDD
Political Cortex
Senate Guru
Skippy
Swing State Project
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo
The Right's Field

LBAN Network

Agonist
All Spin Zone
AlterNet
AMERICAblog
American Street
ArchPundit
BAGNewsnotes
BartCop
Big Head DC
Blogging of the Pres
BlogACTIVE
Bluegrass Report
Bluegrass Roots
Blue Indiana
BlueJersey
Blue Mass. Group
BlueOregon
BlueNC
Bob Geiger
Booman
BRAD Blog
Brendan Calling
Buckeye State Blog
Burnt Orange Report
Calitics
Capitol Annex
Carpetbagger Report
Chris Floyd
Clay Cane
Cliff Schecter
Comments from Left Field
Confined Space
Corrente
Cotton Mouth
Crooks and Liars
culture kitchen
Cursor
Daily Gotham
Daily Kos
David Corn
Democrats.com
Dem Bloggers
Deride and Conquer
Democratic Underground
Digby
DovBear
Drudge Retort
Ed Cone
ePluribus Media
Eschaton
Ezra Klein
Feministe
Feministing
Firedoglake
Fired Up
First Draft
Frameshop
Greatscat!
Green Mountain Daily
Greg Palast
Hoffmania
Horse's Ass
Hughes for America
In Search of Utopia
Is That Legal?
Jesus' General
Jon Swift
Juan Cole
Keystone Politics
Kick!
KnoxViews
Las Vegas Gleaner
Latino Pundit
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Left Coaster
Left in the West
Liberal Avenger
Liberal Oasis
Loaded Orygun
Mahablog
Majikthise
Make Them Accountable
Matthew Yglesias
MaxSpeak
Media Girl
Michigan Liberal
Minnesota Campaign Report
Minnesota Monitor
MyDD
My Left Nutmeg
My Left Wing
My Two Sense
Nathan Newman
Needlenose
Nevada Today
News Corpse
News Dissector
Newshoggers
News Hounds
Nitpicker
Oliver Willis
onegoodmove
OpenLeft
PageOneQ
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
People's Rep. of Seabrook
PinkDome
Politics1
Political Animal
Political Wire
Poor Man Institute
Prairie State Blue
Progressive Historians
Raising Kaine
Raw Story
Reno Discontent
Republic of T
Rhode Island's Future
Rochester Turning
Rocky Mountain Report
Rod 2.0
Rox Populi
Rude Pundit
Sadly, No!
Satirical Political Report
Seeing The Forest
Shakesville
SirotaBlog
SistersTalk
Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
Slacktivist
Smirking Chimp
SquareState
Suburban Guerrilla
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
Talk Left
Tapped
Taylor Marsh
Tattered Coat
Texas Kaos
The Albany Project
The Blue State
The Democratic Daily
The Hollywood Liberal
The Reaction
The Talent Show
This Modern World
Town Called Dobson
Turn Maine Blue
Uppity Wisconsin
Wampum
War and Piece
WashBlog
Watching the Watchers
West Virginia Blue
Young Philly Politics
Young Turks

Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless

blog radio

Get the albany project in your inbox! Just enter your email address

Delivered by FeedBurner

____________________


Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Powered by: SoapBlox