Senators' positions on marriage equality **UPDATED x2**

add one (0.00 / 0)

Senator Onorato has told people in our district that he will be voting against the marriage equality bill. So you can add him to the negative column

---

by: stevenman5000 @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 22:45:17 PM UTC

Updated, thanks (0.00 / 0)

Depressing -- 6 DEM noes!? Does Tom Duane really think we can overcome that?

---

by: PistolPetey @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 00:12:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Probably more (0.00 / 0)

The other Queens Democrats are being lobbied hard to oppose it.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 04:26:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nice work! (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for posting it.

---

by: robinia @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 02:35:53 AM UTC

So we're basically done then? (0.00 / 0)

With six Democratic "nos," I can't see how we pull this off.

I knew it was going to be like this, but I was beginning to hope a little

---

by: wmlawman @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 04:05:13 AM UTC

Espada is a yes (0.00 / 0)

http://www.riverdalepress.com/...

State Sen. Pedro Espada Jr., who represents parts of Fieldston, Riverdale and Kingsbridge, has not given a clear position on gay marriage until now. In a statement released last week, he said the bill has little chance of passing - but he'd vote for it.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 04:22:52 AM UTC

You're missing some yes votes. (0.00 / 0)

The bill has 19 co-sponsors.  That doesn't include M. Smith and Alesi, so there's a total of 21 yes votes.

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

Espada and Antoine Thompson are among the co-sponsors, so you can count them as yes votes.

---

by: GallatinDan @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 11:14:33 AM UTC

Stavisky is a yes (0.00 / 0)

She is a cosponsor as well.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 12:56:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's what I know... (0.00 / 0)

This was going to be tough. While we didn't have the exact numbers, we did know that a few Democrats would vote against the marriage equality bill and plenty of Republicans would be opposed to it. Six Democrats is a lot, especially since three of them represent districts in New York City.

But this is what I do know:

- Mike Ranzenhofer, one of the seven Republicans in the undecided column, said during a SD-61 debate last fall that he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. I don't think he ever answered the question directly, but that is how he answered it.

- Joe Robach has been an opponent of gay rights in the past. I can't see him voting for this bill either. Maybe he will pull an Alesi. I would keep him in the undecided column until he goes public with his support or opposition, but we might be waiting until the vote is held to hear that.

- I think there is one or two more Republican votes that might come our way. But that will hardly make up for the six Democrats that will vote against the bill and the majority of Republicans who are set to vote against it.  

---

by: robert.harding @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 11:18:35 AM UTC

I don't honestly believe (0.00 / 0)

that Ranzenhofer cares too much whether gays marry or not. He's one of those Republicans who runs for office only because he hates paying taxes. He's against gay marriage because that's how he gets support from his party.

Antoine Thompson has no political risk. His district is very religious, but the demographics make it next to impossible for him to lose a primary, and the apportionment makes it impossible for him to lose a general. I can't imagine that he'd vote no.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 12:42:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Addabbo is a yes (0.00 / 0)

Last year, Addabbo stated in a candidate forum that he would vote yes.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 12:54:50 PM UTC

He's "listening to his constituents" (0.00 / 0)

I am one, but if he's listening to his constituents, he's voting no.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 21:05:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A definite no? (0.00 / 0)

What specifically is the basis for putting Aubertine, Stachowski and Valesky in the "no" column?  Can they be turned around?

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 13:01:50 PM UTC

The electorate, I believe (4.00 / 1)

Aubertine is making huge gains for us in a very conservative, very Catholic, very rural place.  Regardless of his own convictions (he, too, is Catholic, and I believe his opposition is heartfelt), it would be political suicide for him to vote for this.  

Don't know Valesky's district quite as well, and he is more established, but imagine he is in a similar boat.

Concentrate on Robach if you want to push-- he is vulnerable for voting no, for the same reason (electorate).

---

by: robinia @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 13:07:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The basis is quotes in the papers (0.00 / 0)

See the other thread on this for sources for all three, in the comments.

For the first 2, it would murder them politically.

Aubertine is permanently vulnerable until redistricting, and is not a liberal.

Stachowski is in an extremely Catholic district, about 70%. But, like Aubertine, I kinda doubt he'd vote for it even if he thought that it wouldn't hurt him politically.

Don;t know Valesky.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 13:31:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I go to college in Saland's district... (0.00 / 0)

...and I've heard rumors that he supports it. I can't produce any concrete evidence, though.

---

by: Rufus T. Firefly @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 14:37:44 PM UTC

More Positions Known (0.00 / 0)

Shirley Huntley (D) - NO
http://www.zwire.com/site/news...

Mike Ranzenhofer (R) - NO
http://www.wkbw.com/news/local...

---

by: newnewyorker @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 20:27:36 PM UTC

Argh! (0.00 / 0)

Bummer. Thanks for the info. Sounds like Addabbo is back to ?? too.

I will update shortly. The table formatting is really irritating. :)

---

by: PistolPetey @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 21:21:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He's always been a ? I think (0.00 / 0)

I'm actually supposed to see Senator Addabbo tonight.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 22:12:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So they need to run the table. (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for playing, gay marriage bill. See you again in 2011.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 00:54:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Monserrate is a yes (0.00 / 0)

I got this from a good source; he's a yes.

Huntley is currently not a firm no, and may become a yes.

Foley will be heavily lobbied.

I'm still confident Addabbo will vote yes.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 23:30:15 PM UTC

Addabbo is a yes (0.00 / 0)

Talked to him tonight, he's definitely a yes, but he concedes (and regrets) the votes aren't there. Dan is also correct about Monserrate.

Foley and Huntley are "lobbyable" Both are listening to constituents, who right now seem to lean against.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 01:34:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Always remember that people can be flipped. (4.00 / 1)

Remember, in Vermont, it didn't originally pass the Senate with a veto proof majority. But within only a few days, progressive activists got a couple of people to switch sides.

If you live in the district of someone who's on the fence or has indicated they're voting no, be sure to up the pressure on them, and get all your like-minded friends in the area to do the same.

---

by: Rufus T. Firefly @ Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 03:32:32 AM UTC