Jamie Rodemeyer, a 14 year old LGBT kid from Buffalo struggling with discovering his own sexuality and the victim of relentless bullying, has taken his own life.
Jamey Rodemeyer needed help. At 14, he was grappling with adolescent demons that could torment grown men.
And when he was online, he wrote about it.
"I always say how bullied I am, but no one listens," he wrote Sept. 9. "What do I have to do so people will listen to me?"
Just over one week later, Jamey was found dead outside his home of an apparent suicide.
....
On Saturday night, he posted a lyric from Lady Gaga's song "The Queen" on his Facebook page: "Don't forget me when I come crying to heaven's door."
Jamey tweeted this just before committing suicide last weekend:
It's not like Jamey suffered in silence. Apparently the bullying went on for quite some time and he was quite vocal about it. Much of it was even posted in public forums for all to see.
Jamey did have bad days. Issues of bullying and even suicide talk were not new to many of Jamey's family or friends. They were common topics for him and seemed to ramp up to an extreme level when other students started making taunts with gay references to Jamey about 12 months ago.
"JAMIE IS STUPID, GAY, FAT ANND UGLY. HE MUST DIE!" read one post.
Another read: "I wouldn't care if you died. No one would. So just do it :) It would make everyone WAY more happier!"
And die he did, by his own hand.
I hope that those kids and their parents feel the viscous slick of blood on their hands this morning. If those kids are capable of projecting so much hate at such a young age, it says something really awful about the lives they have lead to this point and the quality of the parenting in the homes they are growing up in.
But there is plenty of blame to go around. It seems so many "adults" in Jamey's life failed him utterly. This was not a kid who was silent about the abuse he was receiving nor was he shy about talking about the ultimate remedy for such treatment at the hands of his peers. He even made a "It Gets Better" video a mere 4 months ago.
And yet it never got better for Jamey Rodemeyer, a child that will never see his potential realized, will never fall in love, will never be able to someday, in the future, tell a troubled, bullied young teen that "it gets better."
And more evidence that Maybe Dean Skelos just might be being honest this time about having a conscience vote on marriage equality. Seems they've been polling battleground districts and hating on the gheys just isn't as popular as it once was.
The New York Post reports today that a surprising slew of Republicans, all of whom voted to defeat a same-sex marriage bill in 2009, are ready to vote "yes" this time around. These senators include are Kemp Hannon of Nassau County, Charles Fuscillo of Suffolk County, Betty Little of Glens Falls, Andrew Lanza of Staten Island, Greg Ball of Putnam County, James Alesi of Rochester, and Roy McDonald of Rensselaer County.
According to the Post, Republicans have been conducting secret polls showing majority support for gay marriage in key swing districts, causing the GOP to be concerned that voting down marriage equality this year would cause them to lose control of the Senate next year to Democrats.
....
Republicans are worried about passing gay marriage by a single vote, leaving one of their members to be viewed as the decisive figure, according to the Times.
And Senate majority leader, Dean G. Skelos, who previously said he'd let the vote to come to the floor-- even though he would vote "no"-- now says he will have to discuss the issue with his caucus before allowing the vote.
The strongest force against gay marriage has been the state Conservative Party, who says it will deny political support to any Republican who backs gay marriage.
Looks like this train just might be (finally!) leaving the station.
Well, well, well. This is interesting, though I'm not terribly surprised. The New York Times is reporting that three of the "nay" votes from the last time a marriage equality vote made it to the floor of the Senate have now flipped and become "yeas."
Three wavering Democratic lawmakers in the State Senate have agreed to support legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in New York, several people with knowledge of the negotiations said on Monday, marking a potential turning point for the long-debated measure.
The three senators - Joseph P. Addabbo Jr., Shirley L. Huntley of Queens and Carl Kruger of Brooklyn - all voted against the measure in 2009, when it failed by a wide margin. Their switch to the yes column leaves all but one Senate Democrat supporting same-sex marriage -and the fate of the legislation in the hands of the Republican majority in the chamber.
Republican senators voted unanimously against same-sex marriage two years ago, but several have indicated in recent weeks that they are undecided. Speaking with reporters on Monday, Dean G. Skelos, the Senate majority leader, said that if a same-sex marriage bill came to the floor, each Republican senator would be free to vote his or her conscience, but he added that he had not formally asked his members where they stood.
The announcement, just days from the end of the legislative session next Monday, signifies the first clear advance in months for advocates of same-sex marriage and a victory for John L. Sampson, the Democratic minority leader, who has spent weeks coaxing a consensus out of his oft-fractious conference.
This is certainly good news and I think if Skelos actually means what he says about a conscience vote, I believe that it may actually pass this time, perhaps even comfortably. That said, Skelos told the Dem leadership in 2009 before that last that he would free his conference to vote their consciences and he, well, he flat out lied and punk'd Sampson (and LGBT New Yorkers) something good. And let's not forget the three closet cases that voted against equality last time out....
I have a feeling it may be different this time though. I just don't think the issue is as much of a winner for the haters as it used to be and the number of Dem "nays" is down to only one, the gay hatin', single issue abomination that is the Rev Ruben Diaz. (By the way, what on earth does Diaz do after this is no longer an issue? Seriously, what will he do with himself then?)
So, my fingers are crossed. I think this is the best shot we've ever had to extend full citizenship rights to all New Yorkers. But, I'm still a realist. If you want this as much as I and millions of others do, hit the phones and let your state senator know how you feel. Now is the time to make your voice heard.
Republican New York Assembly Woman Janet Duprey shares her experience of changing her vote on marriage equality from "No" to "Yes" in 2009. It's a great read in the upstate Times Union. I hope her colleagues in the Senate read it.
Of particular interest is once again, predictions of the sky falling on the issue of LGBT rights turn out to be unfounded. She says:
"After the vote, some were quick to write my political obituary. They said my constituents would never forgive me for changing my vote. They said the extremists who promised to defeat me would win.
They were wrong. The outpouring of support and appreciation I received was overwhelming. It came from my constituents and from advocates committed to standing behind those who support the freedom to marry.
That community of support made a difference. The moral and financial support, strategic advice and counseling and dedicated commitment by volunteers proved too much for those who campaigned against me because of my vote.
I did not lose my election because of my stand. Neither has any of the 72 Republican legislators who have voted for the freedom to marry.
National Organization for Marriage has dusted off the same playbook from California, Maine and elsewhere. They never have anything new. Same shit, new state.
This week, New York. Their ad is out, and it's the nothing new. From them, or from the opponents of LGBT equality, dating back to the days of Anita Bryant.
As announced last Wednesday in the New York Times, two dozen of the state's top business leaders have released an open letter to Albany legislature urging them to pass the marriage equality bill that will soon come to a vote.
To remain competitive, New York must continue to contend with other world cities to attract top talent. Increasingly, in an age where talent determines the economic winners, great states and cities must demonstrate a commitment to creating an open, healthy and equitable environment in which to live and work.
This is why it is so important that New York State grant full rights to all of its citizens by passing marriage equality.
I don't employ hyperbole lightly, but I will use it where appropriate. And "Titans" is a pretty accurate word to describe the list of 23 signatories that includes the past and present CEOs and top executives of Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Revlon, Viacom, Reuters and a wide variety of finance, real estate, media, law and other professions. With only a few exceptions they all have dedicated profile pages on Forbes.com. How many of us can say that?
And it should be noted, the list also includes more than a few well-known Republicans.
Kudos to New Yorkers United For Marriage the coalition of advocates that successfully enlisted our friends in the world of business to stump for the cause. The full letter after the fold.
There's been a great deal of concern around here about the effort to prepare the US military for the full repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), and I've had a few words of my own regarding how long the process might take.
There was a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee last Thursday that had all four Services represented; with one exception these were the same Service Chiefs that were testifying last December when the bill to set the repeal process in motion was still a piece of prospective legislation.
At that time there was concern that the "combat arms" of the Marines and the Army were going to be impacted in a negative way by the transition to "open service"; the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Army's Chief of Staff were the most outspoken in confirming that such concerns exist within the Pentagon as well.
We now have more information to report-including the increasing desperation of some of our Republican friends-and if you ask me, I think things might be better than we thought.
That former Congressman Chris Lee was so attracted to cross-dressers and transsexuals should not be a source of ridicule and derision. People in a free country can - and ought to have the right to - love, or have sex with, any willing partner. That Lee betrayed traditional family values is none of our business, and that he trolled Craigslist for dates with women, and women with penises alike, is newsworthy for its lack of good judgment, but were he a private citizen it would not be our concern - no big deal. His hasty self-return to private life is now explained. As a public figure, it matters because his brazen Craigslist hookups and flailing cover-up were not just hypocritical, but indiscreet.
...
It all underscores the fact that the Republican anti-gay platform merely panders to the radical Christian fundamentalists who partly puppeteer that party. There are plenty of LGBT Republicans, and their personal, private sexual lives are nobody's business. It's ok to be a gay Republican.
Imagine what a better country this would be if sexuality was divorced (so to speak) from politics. If homophobia was excised from politics and from parties' platforms, the only place it would remain socially acceptable would be in the pews, prayers, and pulpits of radically fundamentalist houses of worship. Imagine if the very first public proclamation by Republican congressional candidates didn'tinvolve homophobia.
The Republican Party used to stand for less government, (despite never practicing what they preach). Yet when it comes to sexuality, they out-Puritan the Puritans, which makes it exquisitely embarrassing when someone with an (R) after their name is caught outside the wife-two-kids norm.
Whenever the topic turns to treating homosexuals like people, some cretin will chime in with an uninformed slippery slope argument about how tolerance of gay unions will lead to bestiality, pedophilia, and polygamy. It's a false equivalence; those three activities are victimization and abuse; of kids, of animals, and of multiple women. It's those kinds of "arguments" that hamstring rational discussion about this particular issue - because its terms are dictated and framed by the radical fundamentalists and their puppets.
Sexuality has nothing to do with running the country. It's time to legalize gay marriage - by Constitutional amendment if necessary - and to completely separate sexuality and state. Chris Lee and Carl Paladino will thank you.
I'm one of those people that almost always vote. President, check, off-year Congressional, check, statewide, check, City, most of the time, primaries, sometimes.
This year, with all due respect to those seeking or in office, has been a harder sell. Between the catastrophic governorship of David Paterson, the Senate coup - and subsequent buy-off of the putschists and all the other greater or lesser scandals instead of that era of reform we were all promised once the Democrats took that majority - and the ongoing debacle that is the Assembly, really, why bother?
Then, of course, there was the marriage vote, which neither myself nor many other LGBT New Yorkers are in any mood to forgive anytime soon.
But this year offers the chance of a new start.
In Andrew Cuomo, we have a very thoughtful and by all appearances hands-on candidate for governor. After the vacuum of the Paterson era, that's exactly what we need.
Kirsten Gillibrand, obviously, is a rock star of the Senate and possibly the most exciting leader to emerge from this state in decades.
Eric Schneiderman is someone I've known for years and think highly of. When New York City activists couldn't get anyone to listen to them, Eric was the one who took the call and made the meeting.
So yes, tomorrow morning, I'm going to go vote. And the more I think about it, the more I look forward to marking that snazzy new paper ballot.
These people deserve my vote, and, I think, yours too.
A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.
U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.
"This order from Judge Phillips is another historic and courageous step in the right direction, a step that Congress has been noticeably slow in taking," said Alexander Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans.
DOJ is likely to appeal the ruling, but today, for the first time in the history of the Republic, gay and lesbian Americans can serve the flag like all other Americans, with honesty and without fear.
I don't know that anyone's made this connection yet, but it's noteworthy that Brooklyn, America's hometown, has been the scene for two extravagant displays of bigotry in the last few days.
Why does this coincidence of timing and place matter?
Because it shows the underlying mindset of the bigot. It's not that big of a step from declaring LGBT Americans 'dysfunctional' and not something you want your children exposed to to picketing funerals and synagogues. The only distinction is one of degree.
That's what New Yorkers need to consider before casting their ballots in November.
I begin to suspect this campaign is all an elaborate hoax.
Republican candidate for governor Carl P. Paladino told a gathering in Williamsburg Sunday that children should not be "brainwashed" into thinking that homosexuality is acceptable, and criticized his opponent, Democrat Andrew M. Cuomo, for marching in a gay pride parade earlier this year. [..]
And then, to applause from the group at Congregation Shaarei Chaim, he said: "I didn't march in the gay parade this year - the gay pride parade this year. My opponent did and that's not the example we should be showing our children."
Newsday.com reported that Mr. Paladino's prepared text also included a sentence saying: "There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual.'' But Mr. Paladino omitted that statement when he gave the speech.
Listen, idiot, this is how it works: you wake up one morning on the cusp of puberty and realize you've just had a wet dream about a boy, and you're a boy. Ooops.
And then you spend the next few years desperately trying to fit in, to out-boy all the other boys, until you finally have enough. If you're lucky, there's someone there who cares.
And then you spend the rest of your life trying to convince idiots, like you, Carl, that it's really not all about the clothes and the cosmopolitans and the dance music and the chic apartment and the menu French and the gym membership and so on and so forth.
Now here's the fun part. You're running for governor. Ask your fellow neanderthal, Harold Ford, how running against the gays worked out for him.
In New York, battlelines are being sharply drawn between bigotry and equality. And leadership is losing the will to stand with bigotry, no matter how well entrenched its proponents are.
The background is, there was a fundraiser last night for New York State Seantor Ruben Diaz. A Pentecostal minister, Diaz has been the single biggest impediment to the progress of LGBT affirmative legislation in New York state. He stood alone on the Senate floor and urged a no vote on the historic marriage equality bill last December. Unfortunately, despite a dozen senators taking to the floor in suport of equality, and only one Senator speaking against it, the vote failed.
Just this June, Diaz also used his committee position to vote down the movement of GENDA bill, which would have extended discrimination protection to the transgender community. (Yes, NY still does not have that, shamefully.)
Increasingly, the LGBT community is recognizing that equality in New York State can not move forward, so long a Diaz remains in the Senate. Removing Diaz is the single biggest victory LGBT New Yorkers, and their supporters, could score.
When local LGBT activists got wind that New York State Senate Majority Leader John Sampson lent his name and planned to co-host a fundraiser for Daiz, Queer Rising planned a protest. It's all well and good to protest Diaz himself, but he is frankly, unreachable. He has told supporters:
"These election results will be vital to us as Christians and God-fearing people to keep our family, moral and traditional values that our ancestors left us and that the Bible teaches us."
Another politician who can't distinguish the Bible from the Constitution, or Democracy from Theocracy.
So activists have expanded their focus to include John Sampson's complicity with LGBT disenfranchisement. The message: you can't have it both ways any longer. You can't support the LGBT community and those that fight the LGBT community.
So potential Senate candidate from New York state Harold Ford spoke to the LGBT group, Stonewall Democrats at New York City's GBLT Community Center in Greenwich Village. If you're thinking, "Gosh, that has FAIL written all over it!"You're right!
welcome to New York. Make yourself comfortable. Have a bagel.
Okay, now that we have the pleasantries out of the way, I have a few questions for you. It appears you're considering running for the Senate from my state, and you know what that means? It means that you answer to people like me, voters, bloggers, that kind of grubby folk. And it appears you're speaking tonight to the Stonewall Democrats, the largest LGBT political club in the state.
President Obama will ask Congress Wednesday night to repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars gays and lesbians from openly serving, White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod told CNN.
The request will be included in the president's State of the Union address, Axelrod said.
The issue has been a source of contention for heavy hitters on both sides of the issue, who are lining up for a fight.
In a message to Pentagon leadership, Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it's time to repeal the law.
"As a nation built on the principal of equality, we should recognize and welcome change that will build a stronger more cohesive military," said Shalikashvili. His letter was sent to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, who supports repealing the policy.
You can watch President Obama's State of the Union address at the White House website.
Gays in the Military | 10:16 p.m. The president also renewed his call to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." He placed a timeframe on it, but it was not exactly clear whether the process would begin or end in 2010. "This year," he said, "I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."
At the New York State United Teachers conference in April, I had the opportunity to hear Kevin Jennings speak. Jennings is now the safe schools chief in the Obama administration and was at the NYSUT convention to talk about how LGBT issues in schools. He gave an outstanding presentation entitled, "Education for All: Addressing Issues of Sexual Orientation and Sexual Identity in our Schools." In his presentation, his message was clear: If LGBT students receive support during their academic career, then they will be successful. He tied success directly to the support they receive in school because if they don't receive that support, it will be very hard for them.
Much like Van Jones, Jennings has been a target of right-wingers like Glenn Beck, Fox News and the Washington Times because he is a "czar" in the Obama administration AND because, they falsely claimed, Jennings covered up statutory rape. When that was proven to be false, they moved on to the next line of attack: That at a Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN convention in 2000, one of the topics was "fisting." Of course, this is a false claim. (The truth is that this wasn't a topic, but was featured in a question and answer exchange during a panel that Jennings had nothing to do with.)
If you want the truth on those stories, go to Media Matters.
So what Buffalo Pundit reported to us yesterday will surely get your blood boiling. Tom Bauerle, a right-wing host on WBEN 930 AM in Buffalo, used that "fisting" line of attack against Jennings while also making the comparison between Jennings and a 100 year old pedophile who is set to be released from prison and will be living in Buffalo. Bauerle, according to Buffalo Pundit, said that the pedophile had the qualifications for an appointment with the Obama administration and then started talking about Jennings.
Coincidence? Definitely not.
Blatantly dishonest, false and wrong? Absolutely.
Courtesy of Buffalo Pundit, here is a clip from Bauerle's show.
I put together a transcript of the clip below if you don't want to waste time listening. Bauerle starts off by talking about the pedophile and that leads into his ranting about Jennings.
BAUERLE: Authorities, psychologists they say he is likely to molest again. He is likely to hurt other children. And you know what? If we don't have the ability as a society to put somebody like this behind bars forever, something is seriously rotten in the state of Denmark. If we are willing to put our children at risk at the hands of this man, then something needs to change. Something needs to get a lot better. Because this man should never be on the streets. This man, and I use the word loosely, should have been executed and removed a long time ago legally, of course, after due process.
BAUERLE: But at the same time as this article is in the Buffalo News and some of the other news stations, you do realize that your president - and I say your president because Erie County voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama - your president, he has a friend - Kevin Jennings - who is a pervert. He is a pervert because he thinks it's okay to teach children about hardcore sexual activity. He has asked children the question spit or... he thinks that's okay. His organization has had workshops for children in the sexual practice known, believe me I kind of blush saying this on the radio, a sexual practice known as fisting. I don't even want to talk about what it is. Children!
BAUERLE: So we have this picture in the paper of this local pedophile. Let's say he's molested a few children over the years. Yet, we have a guy President Obama has appointed to be the so-called safe schools czar who openly advocates what this guy did. What is wrong with this picture folks?
BAUERLE: By the way, I have put a link up on WBEN.com to today's editorial in the Washington Times and without re-reading the entire editorial, I think the disclaimer at the beginning pretty much says it all. The Washington Times actually put a warning on its editorial. This editorial includes discussion of topics that are sexually graphic. Under usual circumstances, we would never entertain these subjects or the rancid language involved. In this case, however, a very unusual exception must be made because the issues are central to the background of a senior presidential appointee at the U.S. Department of Education who is in a position to influence how and what are children are taught in our nation's schools. Thus far, out of fear for squeamishness there has been a public hesitancy to examine closely the beliefs of this individual because many are afraid to even touch the risky content. Our scruples, writes the Washington Times in today's editorial, cannot be used against us when traditional moral precepts need to be defended simply the deep level of depravity involved in this subject cannot be portrayed without providing a couple of examples to illustrate the inappropriate content.
BAUERLE: You've got the president's safe schools czar who is a pedophile by proxy and he supports teaching young children about acts that if I describe them in great detail on the radio I would be fired, fined or both.
Bauerle isn't the only radio host to join the Jennings is a pervert smear campaign. But the Washington Times editorial he cites has already been broken down by Media Matters. What the Washington Times and other right-wingers fail to mention is that Jennings criticized the content of the panel that day (which again, did not feature Jennings) and that the individuals who did run that particular panel were fired or resigned as a result of their conduct. Articles about the controversy show Jennings as "surprised and troubled" by the line of discussion in the panel and said GLSEN would have clearer standards going forward.
Bauerle is just another lazy right-wing radio host who would rather run his mouth than tell the truth. His hatred for Obama is blinding him. And his Glenn Beck wannabe act has long been worn out.
Bauerle needs to apologize to his listeners for the lazy and false content. He also should apologize to Jennings for pushing the same lies that are easily debunked and for not giving Jennings the recognition he deserves since Jennings DID stand up and say that this was inappropriate and believed that it wasn't a suitable conversation to have.
Bauerle was right: Talking about this just might get him fined or fired. If he keeps lying, that just might happen.
The vote for marriage equality failed today by a 38 to 24 vote. While this is a sad day in New York, it is also a positive one. The vote today, while not the result we wanted, is a first step in the pursuit of equality. We know where we stand. We have 24 votes. We need eight more.
The disappointing fact is that in the Democratic conference, we had eight members who voted against equality. There were five who had hinted that they were definitely no votes or possible no votes. We knew that Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. was going to vote no. He wanted to suspend democracy by not having a vote at all (he considered it "treason" today that a vote was even held, regardless of the outcome) and has been the Senate's most outspoken critic of marriage equality, even outdoing the 30 members of the Republican conference who have said very little on the subject.
The other seven Democrats who voted against the bill with Diaz are:
- Joseph Addabbo - Darrel Aubertine - Shirley Huntley - Carl Kruger - Hiram Monserrate - George Onorato - Bill Stachowski
So who won this round of the marriage fight in New York? Who lost? Here are those answers.
WINNERS Marriage Equality Advocates: It might not feel like it now, but this is a small victory. It's not the outcome groups like Empire State Pride Agenda wanted, but it is a vote. It gives them what they need to push forward and help primary some of these Democrats (Onorato and Huntley come to mind) who voted against the bill and prevented equality.
Gang Of Four: Remember the original "Gang of Four?" It consisted of Diaz, Pedro Espada, Kruger and Monserrate. Three of those four voted against the bill today and played a part in assuring the failure of this bill. Only Espada, who argued passionately for equality, voted for it. But this goes to show that the so-called "Amigos" shouldn't have been negotiated with in the first place and voted against the Democratic conference.
Republicans: It is hard to argue that the more united party in the state senate is the Republican Party. It was speculated that a few Republicans would break with their party and vote for this bill. In the end, none of them did. Of course, this could be a politically convenient for some, since such a vote would draw the ire of social conservatives within the party and with Republicans like Vincent Leibell being subjected to a primary, but they come away from this vote unscathed (for the most part).
LOSERS Senator Tom Duane: On several occasions, Duane has said he has the votes to pass this. In the end, that was wishful thinking. The leading voice for marriage equality in the Senate and the Senate's only openly gay member was eight votes off of what he needed to pass a bill that is very important to him personally and politically.
Democratic Conference: Like Duane, the conference made the mistake of indicating that they might have the votes and expressed feelings of optimism. The vote should have taken place, but the overconfidence could have been left at the door. They had no less than 22 votes to start with and ended up with 24. It wasn't even close. It is good that they brought it to the floor for a vote - a rarity in Albany when a bill faces such uncertainty - but saying it might pass was overdoing it.
Queens Democrats: The excuses are plenty. In Addabbo's case, it is the Catholic Church's pressure. In Huntley's case, it is her predominantly African American district. As Yorkvillian pointed out in another thread, these districts are represented in the Assembly by progressives AND supporters of marriage equality. So the argument that they had to vote against equality is weak. Credit goes to Malcolm Smith and Toby Ann Stavisky for voting in favor of the bill.
Governor David Paterson was not a winner or loser. He called for a vote and he got what he called for. In that sense, he was a winner. As a supporter of marriage equality, he didn't win, but it wasn't his job to pass the bill. His job is to sign it. He won't have that chance.
This vote will have consequences for both parties. There will be primaries for Democrats next year. Will this vote be the sole reason for that? No. There are Democrats who were being eyed for primaries before (Huntley, Monserrate, Onorato) whose votes won't help them and will only make the case against them stronger.
It is a disappointing outcome, but at least it is an outcome. This starting point will be helpful for future votes.
Bill Stachowski (SD-58)
Democrats: 108,163 Republicans: 43,307 Independence: 8,073 Conservative: 4,888 Working Families: 972 Blank: 32,129
TOTAL: 198,033
Believe in replacing these Democrats with the best Democrats? We can.
The only Democrat who voted against marriage equality who gets a pass is Darrel Aubertine, who is a social conservative and has made his stance known for some time. While he is a no vote, he comes from a district where there are 26,500 more Republicans than Democrats (SD-48). Yes, it would have been better for him to support this, but given the seven others who come from very blue districts, he gets a pass.
A side story here is the fact that half of the Democrats who voted against the bill hail from Queens. Huntley, Onorato, Monserrate and Addabbo all represent districts in Queens and voted against equality. More senators from what is known as conservative upstate voted for marriage equality (three) than senators from the more blue, Democratic and alleged progressive territories in the city.
But there is no excuse for this. The eight votes against marriage equality was the difference. Eight Democrats voting against their party on a key issue like this is never acceptable. This is a matter of equal rights. Apparently these senators are sending a message that they do not wish for equal rights.
Next year will be the year of the primary on both sides of the aisle. Democrats will see their share come September 2010.
UPDATE: Senate adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.
All signs are pointing to the New York State Senate voting on the Marriage Equality Act (S4401) tonight. The debate and vote won't take place until late tonight, but multiple sources are telling me it is going to happen.
The historic nature of this bill won't be lost on the Assembly either. Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell, who is the sponsor of the Assembly version of the bill, said earlier today that his chamber will pass marriage equality again which will set the stage for the Senate later tonight.
It is the Senate where the bill faces uncertainty. Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. - a vocal opponent of marriage equality based on his religious beliefs - has resorted to prayer. He has tried to stand in the way of a vote in the past, but the fact he is now praying means that a vote is not only coming, but a real chance at passing.
So what does this bill need to pass? There are no less than 22 votes for the bill right now. Those votes are all Democrats. Sponsor of the bill Tom Duane and 19 co-sponsors: Senators Adams, Breslin, Dilan, Espada, Craig Johnson, Klein, Krueger, Montgomery, Oppenheimer, Parker, Perkins, Savino, Schneiderman, Serrano, Squadron, Stavisky, Stewart-Cousins, Hassell-Thompson and Thompson. In addition to those 20, the two leaders of the Democratic conference, John Sampson and Malcolm Smith, are supporting the bill.
That leaves 10 votes needed and a lot of uncertainty.
In May, Nate Silver whipped the votes for marriage equality. He found what we know: This is an uphill battle. There are at least two definite no votes in the Senate Democratic conference: The aforementioned Diaz and Darrel Aubertine, who is a conservative on the social issues (he is also anti-choice). Silver listed five Democrats - Aubertine, Diaz, Shirley Huntley, George Onorato and Bill Stachowski - who were on the record as opposed to marriage equality. However, because of the nature of this vote, there could be at least one of those who are opposed that will vote in the affirmative.
The Republicans have at least 20 members in their conference who will vote against the bill in addition to the two Democrats who are certain no votes. That means there are 18 members who are up in the air. Some will certainly be no votes. Others will be yes votes.
The 18 undecideds are:
DEMOCRATS
- Brian Foley. Foley has been on the fence about marriage equality and has been undecided on the issue since campaigning for the seat in 2008. But when the time comes, he could be a yes vote. It has been said that out of all the undecideds on the Democratic side, he is one of the ones that will vote yes.
- Shirley Huntley. While she is listed as a no, that was in May. This is December. Things can change and a vote for marriage equality would be helpful for her in a conference that is ready to replace her with someone better.
- George Onorato. Onorato has faced protests over his opposition or undecided status. That pressure could turn him into a yes vote.
- Hiram Monserrate. Monserrate isn't exactly beloved. But his vote would be important. He is one of the few representatives from Queens where a vote on marriage equality is possible. Other Hispanic members (including Espada) are supportive. Monserrate might be as well.
- Joseph Addabbo. He is on record as saying he believes there are other important issues to discuss prior to marriage equality. Whether that means he is against equal rights is another issue. He replaced a man who was in opposition, so voting for this bill will mean that 2008 wasn't a loss for those who fought for change and made Addabbo one of two Democrats to overtake Republican incumbents in November (Foley was the other).
- Carl Kruger. Kruger isn't the best Democrat in this conference (although Espada and Monserrate have made him look like a party loyalist over the last several months) but he knows a key vote when he sees it. He has been out in front, as finance chairman, on the issues with the governor's DRP. So if he gets what he wants with the DRP, maybe that will give him the motivation he needs to vote for marriage equality.
- David Valesky. He could be a no, but his leadership position in the Senate might change that. The upstate delegation is split on this and Valesky could give us a third vote from upstate. That would be important.
- Bill Stachowski. He is another whose weak showing in the 2008 elections would be helped by a vote for marriage equality vote. He needs to show that he will be there when it counts and this is a way for him to do that. He is previously a no against it (citing religious reasons) but has kept an open mind on the issue. We need a yes vote from him. This is important.
REPUBLICANS
- Long Island senators: Kenneth LaValle, John Flanagan, Owen Johnson, Kemp Hannon, Charles Fuschillo. Newsday found that six of the nine Long Island senators opposes marriage equality. That means some of these Republicans listed as undecided will be no votes. However, Owen Johnson is still on the fence. So while those Long Island senators (if their votes hold) make it tougher to pass the marriage equality bill, the door is still open.
- Andrew Lanza. Lanza is one of the few Republicans in New York City and might be one of the easier Republicans to bag as a yes vote. His vote, like others, is up in the air but he could be one vote in our column.
- Vincent Leibell. With Leibell getting a primary challenge from Greg Ball, will Leibell move to the right and vote against this? Or would he have voted against it anyway? It's hard to say, but he is another who could be a yes vote under normal circumstances, but might bail on this vote to save his political career.
- Betty Little. Little is leaning no, but would be one of the likely Republicans to vote yes. She is fairly moderate and just might be a surprise vote in favor of the bill.
- Jim Alesi. He is the only Republican on record as a yes vote giving us no less than 23 YES VOTES.
- Cathy Young. Being from a conservative upstate district, it won't be surprising if Young votes no. That is the likely vote, but she might pull a rabbit out of the hat.
My prediction? I say it passes one of two ways:
(1) We get 32 or 33 votes, mostly Democrats but also a few surprise Republicans (i.e. Lanza, Little, etc.). The number of undecided Democrats could also give us a higher number, especially if there are Republicans who will vote for this bill.
(2) We get 31 votes and Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch is called in to cast the tie-breaking vote. What a monumental situation that would be, given the controversy surrounding his appointment.
Will it pass? Possibly. Insiders are saying it is likely. We'll see what happens tonight.
The background is, there was a fundraiser last night for New York State Seantor Ruben Diaz. A Pentecostal minister, 
