I put this out on Twitter earlier today because I didn't have time to put up a post, but for those who don't follow UTF on Twitter, here's the great news from the Honolulu Advertiser:
"The Senate voted 18 to 7 to pass a civil-unions bill. The bill now moves to the House for consideration with a veto-proof majority. The bill would give same-sex and heterosexual couples the ability to enter into civil unions and receive the same state rights as marriage. The Senate gallery was overflowing with people as the Senate prepared to vote. Sen. Kidani offered a floor amendment to change the effective date of the civil-unions bill from Jan. 1, 2010 to Jan. 1, 2011. Kidani said the amendment is to correct a technical flaw and would give the Department of Health more time to implement civil unions. A retroactive date would not make the bill legally invalid, but could invite a veto by Gov. Lingle on technical grounds. Amending the bill could also delay its passage and allow opponents to put more pressure on Democrat senators who appeared ready to pass the bill today. Sen. Ihara, who supports civil unions, said he felt compelled to correct the technical flaw to remove a reason for a veto."
The pressure is on the House now to pass the bill. They actually passed a similar bill last year, so hopefully we can get a repeat performance. A decision will be made next week whether they will take up the measure.
This morning, Wednesday, January 20, 2010, the Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee passed Senate Joint Resolution 13 (SJR-13) by a vote of 6 to 4. Approving the bill were Senators Bray, Zakas, Head, Holman, Schneider, and Steele. Voting no were Senators Lanane, Randolph, Taylor, and Broden. Senator Alting was not in the room for the vote. The Marriage Discrimination Amendment is now eligible for consideration by the full Senate.
So called “pro-family” organizations like Advance America, the Indiana Family Institute and the American Family Association of Indiana are keeping the pressure on Indiana legislators to advance this harmful proposal. It is not time to rest – we need to keep our own pressure going to stop this legislation.
If the state legislature votes in favor of the amendment, both House and Senate, it will then go to the electorate as a ballot initiative. If it passes, the state's constitution will be amended to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
So remember our great victory in New Hampshire back in June? After a tumultuous ride the state's marriage equality bill passed and the governor signed it into law. Starting January 1 the law will go into effect and same-sex couples will begin marrying in New Hampshire.
Back in November I reported that those who opposed the bill are not giving up and have introduced a repeal. On Friday the original sponsor of the marriage equality bill, Rep. Jim Splaine, posted on Blue Hampshire that the repeal has been given a number: House Bill 1590, "An Act Repealing Same Sex Marriage."
Rep. Splaine says, "It will be sent to the House Judiciary Committee, where after a public hearing HB 436 [marriage equality bill] had been reported out with 'no recommendation' after a 10-10 tie. Since then, however, we have picked up at least two members of that committee who now support marriage equality."
He goes on to say encouragingly, "We can beat this. We already have had some Legislative meetings to lay out our strategy, and we will be having more."
Here's where the irony comes in - two New Hampshire House representatives are introducing a repeal to the 200-year-old state law that makes adultery a crime. Punishments once included standing on the gallows for an hour with a noose around the neck, 39 lashes, a year in jail or a fine of 100 pounds - but these have been reduced to a $1,200 fine.
"We shouldn't be regulating people's sex lives and their love lives," state Rep. Timothy Horrigan and bill sponsor told the AP. "This is one area the state government should stay out of people's bedrooms."
I couldn't agree more. But then his colleagues are at the same time trying to do just that by introducing a repeal to a law that keeps government out of same-sex couples' bedrooms. In other words, his colleagues want government in people's bedrooms. Or at least, in gay and lesbian bedrooms. And they don't get the irony in that their actions threaten existing marriages. Yes, that's right - these people are threatening the institute of marriage!
I agree with the repeal of the law that punishes adultery - it should be left up to the civil courts to enforce divorce laws which protect the rights of married couples to separate. But isn't it rather embarrassing that within this same body of legislators some want to take these rights away from other citizens they represent? Because with the right to marry also comes the right to divorce.
I'm not too concerned about the marriage equality repeal - the sponsors have a reputation of leaning to the right just a tad, and they showed their true colors back in June when the marriage bill passed.
But you would think that this would put marriage equality opponents in a pickle. Kind of like in California, where a satirical divorce ban has been introduced to "protect traditional marriage." But you would be wrong.
Kevin Smith, executive director of the conservative Cornerstone Policy Research, said, "Even though this criminal law probably is not enforced right now and probably has not been enforced for some time, I think it's important to have a public policy statement that says generally or in all situations adultery is not a good thing. And I think, by repealing that statute, you're essentially diminishing the harmful effects of adultery."
Riiight. Because it's kept people from divorcing this whole time, protecting those traditional marriages.
Those who oppose marriage equality must really think New Hampshire is the den of iniquity, ripping to shreds traditional marriage. In one year they have legalized same-sex marriage which degrades what marriage is truly all about, and now they want to give "traiditional" couples an easy way out of those "til death to us part" vows! God forbid, what's next?! Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Makes your skin crawl, doesn't it?
After a tumultuous week for New Jersey's marriage equality bill (not being heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee, then finally being heard, and then squeaking out of the committee for a full Senate vote, then the vote being canceled so that the Assembly can take it on, then the Assembly saying it doesn't know if it'll take up the marriage bill), a bit of good news has come out of Trenton today.
The Star-Ledger is reporting that the Assembly Judiciary Committee could add the marriage bill to its schedule shortly after the holidays.
Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer), said the earliest it would appear in the Assembly Judiciary committee is Jan. 4, which would give the issue "a rest until after the Christmas holiday."
"It's their desire to have it the first week in January," he said.
But Gusciora said "anything was subject to change" in Trenton, acknowledging a plan to put the bill to a full vote in the Senate was scrapped earlier this week when there were not enough votes to pass it.
Assembly Judiciary Committee chair Linda Greenstein could not confirm the date for the hearing.
"At this time nothing has been scheduled," said Derek Roseman, a spokesman for Assembly Democrats.
The full Assembly is scheduled to have two voting sessions that same week.
Though nothing is official, it's good that they're considering a "when" and not an "if."
Supporters of the bill need to have it pass both houses before Gov. Jon Corzine leaves office January 19 to receive is guaranteed signature because his replacement, Chris Christie, doesn't care for LGBT rights at all.
The clock is ticking before pro-LGBT Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey leaves office January 19, and still the state's marriage equality bill seems no closer to reaching his desk for his guaranteed signature.
Earlier this week, after passing the Senate Judiciary Committee, sponsors pulled the bill from Thursday's schedule before being voted on by the full Senate when it became clear they did not have the 21 votes needed for passage. However, they said they wanted the Assembly Judiciary Committee to have its chance to hear testimony and to vote themselves on the legislation.
New Jersey's Star-Ledger did a survey of the Senators and found that 13 supported the bill, 18 opposed and 9 were undecided or chose not to indicate their position.
"I can’t in any way, shape or form guarantee them [Assembly members] that it will pass at this point," said Senate President Dick Codey, who was handicapping the bill’s chances of passage in the Senate if it wins approval in the Assembly, reports North Jersey.
[Garden State Equality] also was embarrassed by a series of pro-gay-marriage rallies at legislators’ homes and work sites, and in the case of Republican Minority Leader Thomas H. Kean Jr., showing up at his 11-year-old daughter’s piano recital Tuesday.
Several senators bristled at the tactics, saying that the group had gate-crashed into the lawmakers’ privacy zones.
"Would you want them on your property?" replied Sen. Shirley Turner, a Mercer County Democrat who was not expected to vote for the bill. She said the incident only "further entrenched" her opposition.
[Steven] Goldstein issued an apology to Kean that was posted on political Web sites, saying he was "sickened" by the protest, and that he did not authorize it.
The Star-Ledger also reports that the Assembly Judiciary Committee has no hearing date scheduled. Though rules allow Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts, a supporter of the bill, to schedule a hearing as early as Monday, he said, "But I must emphasize that no hearing has been scheduled and that I am continuing to discuss this issue with our caucus to gauge whether there is enough support for it."
CORRECTION:No real action until 2013! "...lawmakers ... could take up legislation to repeal DOMA — known as the Respect for Marriage Act — at the end of the two-year session starting in 2011."
U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler introduced the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA) in September, and if it passes, it will effectively repeal the heinous 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a piece of knee-jerk legislation from Congress fearing that the near success of marriage equality in Hawaii at the time would spread through the nation like some plague.
Don't get me started.
However, up to this point, we haven't had much of a time line for RMA. Last month, Nadler spokesperson John Doty said, "I think there’s three or four gay rights bills that are cued up. The Respect for Marriage Act is a little bit further down that list. It hasn’t been talked about as long or debated as long … as the other bills."
Rep. Barney Frank agreed. "...marriage is the toughest of these issues. That’s why I do not see any chance of any success on marriage in the Congress this year. Neither does anyone else, by the way, no matter what people pretend to make people feel better. But that’s why we’re focusing on these other issues."
Today, the DC Agenda has posted its interview with Nadler and he talks timing. Nadler says a DOMA repeal won't happen in this Congress and instead he will focus on building support for the issue and then take it up in 2011 after elections, and maybe then not until the end of that term. In the meantime, they will focus on other pro-LGBT legislation taking precedence, such as ENDA and DADT repeal, which they hope to accomplish by the end of 2010.
“The Respect for Marriage Act is a bill that we can’t pass right now; we know we can’t pass it right now,” he said. Currently, it has 105 co-sponsors.
Nadler told the DC Agenda that he believes support will grow, and despite not showing too much enthusiasm to the public, he says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been quietly encouraging her colleagues to sign on a co-sponsors.
As for Rep. Frank: “We have a disagreement on the strategy on this obviously, as we had a disagreement on the strategy over the non-inclusive ENDA last [Congress] where we no longer have that disagreement,” he said. “And, I presume, in the end, we will not have a disagreement on this.”
Even with Democrats potentially in danger, Nadler said he didn’t think lawmakers would avoid LGBT issues next year to reduce a perceived risk of alienating voters before the election.
“I think we’re going to face most of these issues this Congress, mostly next year,” he said. “I’m assuming that the gay community is going to keep the pressure on. I mean, don’t go to sleep because I said it as that. If the gay community keeps the pressure on, then I think that, yes, we’ll probably face most of these issues.”
Don't worry, Rep. Nadler. We aren't going anywhere.
The Star-Ledger is reporting that Thursday's vote on marriage equality in the New Jersey senate will be delayed. The bill's two main sponsors, Sens. Ray Lesniak (D-Union) and Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) say that instead, the Assembly Judiciary Committee will take up the bill in preparation for a full vote in the lower house.
Lesniak believes that both houses of the state legislature will still vote on it before pro-marriage equality Gov. Jon Corzine leaves office on January 19. He also said that the delay is not because they don't have the votes but because they want to the Assembly to engage in the issue and to hear testimony from both sides of the issue just like the Senate Judiciary Committee did on Monday. He believes this is only fair.
Star Ledger reports that senators have been deluged with phone calls from in and out of state but opponents and supports of marriage equality.
"Most of us have spent the last week, even just alone in our district offices fielding questions and speaking to folks, advocates and detractors of the gay marriage bill about this issue," said Sen. Jeff Van Drew (D-Cape May), who said he will vote against the bill.
"But 99 percent of our attention should be turned towards creating a state government that works, figuring how in God's name we're going be able to balance the budget next year."
With his state's senate scheduled to vote on the New Jersey marriage equality bill Thursday, one of the most well-known names to come out of the Garden State, Bruce Springsteen, has spoken up in favor of civil rights for LGBT citizens.
Like many of you who live in New Jersey, I've been following the progress of the marriage-equality legislation currently being considered in Trenton. I've long believed in and have always spoken out for the rights of same sex couples and fully agree with Governor Corzine when he writes that, "The marriage-equality issue should be recognized for what it truly is -- a civil rights issue that must be approved to assure that every citizen is treated equally under the law." I couldn't agree more with that statement and urge those who support equal treatment for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to let their voices be heard now.
The New Jersey marriage equality bill is on thin ice. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Two days before the New Jersey Senate was scheduled to consider a bill to allow same-sex marriage, some area legislators were reticent yesterday to reveal how they would vote.
Dana Redd (D., Camden), who will resign her Senate seat next month to become mayor of Camden, has decided but isn't telling, she said at a Camden City Council meeting last night.
James Beach (D., Camden) hadn't made up his mind, an aide said. And Stephen Sweeney and Fred Madden (both D., Gloucester) did not respond to repeated calls seeking their positions on the issue.
The bill, known officially as the Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act, squeaked through the Judiciary Committee in a 7-6 vote Monday after nine hours of testimony and debate. The Senate will consider it tomorrow.
"It's an uphill fight, but there is a chance for victory," said sponsor Loretta Weinberg (D., Bergen).
-------
No matter what the outcome, tomorrow's vote on the proposal will have national implications, Dworkin said.
"Each side will take what it can from victory or defeat and mobilize based on it," he said. "It just pushes everyone to the next battleground."
On Tuesday, NOM issued a statement (see it on their website if you wish), telling the senate not to "mess with marriage" and claiming that they have spent $600,000 in the Garden State fighting LGBT rights.
Maggie Gallagher says, "New Jersey voters and politicians have given a great deal to Garden State Equality in the last few years, including full civil unions. Steven Goldstein has boasted that New Jersey is one of the best states for gay rights in the country, thanks to his organization's efforts. Why are they insisting on the right to redefine marriage, whether or not the people of New Jersey like it?"
From Blue Jersey, who blogged the public hearing live.
The New Jersey State Senate Judiciary Committee approved the marriage equality bill by a vote of 7-6, with amendments. Two Democrats voted no, while one Republican, Bill Baroni, voted yes. A vote on final passage in the full Senate is expected to be held on Thursday.
Also, thanks to Blue Jersey, I have how each senator voted:
NO - Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen): Chairman, opponent of marriage equality. Doesn't have a law degree. NO - John Girgenti (D-Passaic): Vice Chairman YES - Nia Gill (D-Essex): Black Senator from Montclair, a diverse college town with a large gay population. Strong supporter of marriage equality YES - Ray Lesniak (D-Union): Sharp, articulate lawmaker who led the fight to abolish the death penalty in New Jersey. Strong supporter of marriage equality. YES - Nick Scutari (D-Union): a supporter of marriage equality. YES - Bob Smith (D-Middlesex): a supporter of marriage equality. Smith represents a liberal district in Central NJ which includes New Brunswick and Piscataway. YES - Brian Stack (D-Hudson): a supporter of marriage equality. Stack is also mayor of Union City, and an powerful Hudson County political boss. YES - Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen): the sponsor of the bill and a progressive stalwart in the legislature. YES - Bill Baroni (R-Mercer): very smart, well-liked Republican, and a supporter of marriage equality NO - Christopher Bateman (R-Somerset) NO - Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth): a wild card, and an up-and-comer in the Republican party. NO - Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen): probably the most outspoken opponent on the committee. A dentist by trade; has no law degree. NO - Joe Kyrillos (R-Monmouth): former R party chair, probably an opponent.
Supporter Gov. Jon Corzine, who has pledged to sign a marriage bill if it reaches his but will be replaced by anti-gay Republican Chris Christie in January, said in response:
I commend the Senate Judiciary Committee for allowing a thorough, open discussion on the proposed marriage equality law and approving the bill for action by the full Senate. This is an action that is long overdue. For far too long, a large segment of our population has been denied the fundamental rights and protections of a civil liberty that is granted to all Americans.
Throughout the history of our nation, New Jerseyans have been among the first to champion the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - from the fight for independence to the civil rights movement. By moving forward with marriage equality, today we have taken a significant step toward adding yet another chapter.
I am confident that through this process, the marriage equality issue will be recognized for what it truly is - a civil rights issue that must be approved to assure that every citizen is treated equally under the law.
Senate committee hears emotional testimony on same-sex marriage bill
Senate judiciary committee vote to approve same-sex marriage bill
Sen. Paul Sarlo (Chair): (201) 804-8118 Sen. John Girgenti (Vice-Chair): (973) 427-1229 Sen. Bill Baroni: (609) 631-9988 Sen. Christopher Bateman: (908) 526-3600 Sen. Jennifer Beck: (732) 933-1591 Sen. Gerard Cardinale: (201) 567-2324 Sen. Nia Gill: (973) 509-0388 Sen. Joseph Kyrillos: (732) 671-3206 Sen. Raymond Lesnick: (908) 624-0880 Sen. Nicholas Scutari: (908) 587-0404 Sen. Bob Smith: (732) 752-0770 Sen. Brian Stack: (201) 861-5091 Sen. Loretta Weinberg: (201) 928-0100
Senators are busy calculating the politics on this, and some will base their vote on that. They admit that in private.
Our hope, though, is that senators take the long view this week and ask themselves how they will feel 25 years from now, when gay marriage will likely be a fact of life. Which side were they on?
Supporters of this cause can take some comfort, no matter what happens this week. Gays have come a long way in New Jersey.
This post originally appeared on reporter Karen Ocamb's blog LGBT POV. She has kindly granted me permission to crosspost. I've met John Perez a couple times and found him to be a great guy. I'm very happy to hear that this is happening and wanted to share Karen's amazing reporting on this wonderful news.
John A. Perez reminds me to put the initial “A” in his name when I write stories about him.
I don’t know how many other people with the name “John Perez” there might be in the state of California – but by next Thursday, arguably the most famous John Perez will be the first-term Assemblymember drafted by his colleagues to be America’s first openly gay speaker of any state legislature.
His election appears to be a “fait accomplis,” if one is to believe Capitol Weekly:
“Capitol sources said if Perez is able to secure a majority of his caucus, the vote on a new speaker could come by next week, when the Assembly reconvenes to vote on education legislation.
On Wednesday, incumbent Speaker Karen Bass endorsed Perez. She said she expects the full Assembly Democratic Caucus to vote on a new speaker on December 10.
[snip]
One of those involved in the Draft Perez movement was Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael. Huffman told Capitol Weekly Tuesday, ‘I believe John now has the votes. I think it’s over.’”
Rick Jacobs, openly gay founder of the online progressive Courage Campaign, expressed his support via Huffington Post:
“John Perez is California. He’s openly gay. He’s Latino. He’s a son of Los Angeles. He’s an intellectual, a strategist, an environmentalist, a labor leader. He’s an organizer, a skilled consensus-builder, a unifier and a stunningly disarming public speaker. John is that rare elected official that we know will hold the public interest at heart.
[snip]
California rarely has the opportunity to place the assembly in the hands of a speaker for more than a year or two. John would follow Karen Bass, who has lived through one of the worst imaginable times in our history. Karen is a true progressive, and she supports John. So do I.
And while these leadership battles seem very arcane and insider, it’s time for all of us in this state who support progress to understand that we have a stake in who leads our assembly.”
Longtime openly gay politico Garry Shay, who is a member of the Democratic National Committee’s Executive Committee, and Lead Chair of the Rules Committee of the California Democratic Party, told me:
“I have known John A. Perez for over a decade. He is far and above one of the most intelligent, quick-witted individuals I know. He has empathy for those less fortunate, a clear sense of integrity, and a great sense of humor. His ability to understand complex problems is phenomenal. I have the utmost confidence in him. California, and the Assembly, will be well-served by him as Speaker.”
And then there’s Eric Bauman, Vice Chair of the California Democratic Party and Chair of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. Perez is Bauman’s best friend and served as the best man at his wedding to longtime partner Michael Andraychak, when Bauman was serving as Special Assistant to Gov. Gray Davis.
Perez and Bauman met in that heady year of 1994. There was no “AIDS drug cocktail” at the time and gay men were dying fast. Bauman was the newly elected President of the important LA-based Stonewall Democratic Club – and Perez was working the club to get an endorsement for his cousin, Antonio Villaraigosa, who was running against closeted gay Brian Quintana to represent the 45th District.
Villaraigosa won, as did Sheila James Kuehl – who also became the first openly gay person elected to the California Legislature. Villaraigosa approached Kuehl in their first days on the floor and suggested that the two start the first LGBT Caucus. Perez got very heavily involved in Stonewall after the election.
I asked Eric if it was accurate to suggest that Perez might prove to be something like the effective Willie Brown – the pre-term limits Assembly Speaker from 1980-1995, noting Perez’s ability to court and charm, negotiate, and twist arms when necessary. Bauman said:
“It is perfectly reasonable to allude to his studying and emulating Willie Brown’s political skills, sharing the intellectualism of Bob Hertzberg [who followed Villaraigosa as Assembly Speaker in 2000] and demonstrating the charm and ability to bring people together of Antonio.
But what is amazing is how this has come together with little actual campaigning on John’s part. He was drafted by his colleagues, including two who were contestants for speaker. They went to him and asked him to step up and run for speaker. He was preparing to run for the Senate. That is a real demonstration of the leadership skills he posses and demonstrates.
I could not be prouder of John. It seems as if he was born to be Speaker. He has the extraordinary intellectual vigor, combined with keen political and tactical instincts and years of experience as an organizer and negotiator. When you combine those assets with the fine taste of a gay man, you have the perfect guy to be our nation’s first openly gay legislative speaker.
If John’s ascends to the speakership, youngsters in our community, especially youngsters of color, will have an incredible role model; adults will have a fearless champion they can count on to stand up for what’s right. What a victory for the LGBT community!”
Here’s the take away, as Bauman noted: Perez was drafted because his colleagues think that in this time of economic crisis – California faces at least a $21.7 billion deficit – John A. Perez is not only qualified for the job, he will be an effective leader.
I’ve known John since I first started reporting on the LGBT community in Los Angeles in the early 1990s. He was kind enough to sit down with me over lunch at the French Market in West Hollywood and explain the intricacies of Latino state politics – who was siding with whom and why. One of his great strengths is that he has the patience to be an “explainer in chief,” when called upon.
I have also watched him graciously move aside when the Latino leaders wanted to promote someone else – whose name I don’t even remember now! I suspect it is that graciousness, coupled with the honing of leadership skills that comes from working tirelessly for the local United Food and Commercial Workers Union – as well as workers who are not unionized – that prompted Assembly Speaker Karen Bass to appoint John Chair of the Assembly Democratic Caucus.
UPDATED: One of those Latino leaders – Gil Cedillo – who is termed out in his state Senate seat – is challenging John in the primary for John’s Assembly seat. Capitol Weekly reported Thursday:
A new poll commissioned by Sen. Gil Cedillo shows him with a 26-point lead over incumbent Assemblyman John Perez, D-Los Angeles, in a potential Democratic primary match-up.
Cedillo’s potential challenge of Perez is being used by allies of Assemblyman Kevin De Leon to try to slow down Perez’s momentum in the battle for Assembly speaker. De Leon and Perez both seeking the speaker’s job. De Leon’s backers have cautioned Assembly Democrats from electing a speaker who could potentially lose a primary, or have to spend heavily to protect his own seat.
Perez’s political consultant Douglas Herman dismissed the survey results, saying surveys at this stage of a campaign measure nothing but name identification. “Polling is like any statistic,” said Herman. “You can make polling numbers say what you want them to say.”
Herman noted polls that showed Cedillo running ahead of Judy Chu in a recent race for Congress – a race that Chu won.
“This is not even a credible poll,” Herman said. “This is a poll floated by the same guy who all the polls showed would win his congressional race. And the conduct of his campaign, and the money he spent clearly shows he’s lost credibility in this district.”
While Cedillio has been an advocate for people with HIV/AIDS – several LGBT politicos with whom I have spoken basically snarl at Cedillio for what they perceive is a crass attempt to save his own political hide at the expense of the earned rise to power of an openly gay Latino.
Geoff Kors, Executive Director of Equality California, said:
“Equality California strongly supports John A. Perez becoming the next Speaker of the California Assembly. He would be the first openly LGBT person to hold this very prestigious post. He is a effective and passionate advocate for LGBT and civil rights, labor and other progressive issues and would make an excellent Speaker for California. With California facing unprecedented challenges our state needs a strong leader like Assemblymember Perez.”
“Growing up in the working class communities of El Sereno and Highland Park, John’s parents taught him the value of hard work and community service. With over 15 years working within the labor movement, John has channeled these values into fighting to create jobs, expand healthcare and protect workers’ rights.”
And here he is commenting on the California Supreme Court ruling upholding Prop 8. Meet John A. Perez, first in English, then Spanish.
Last night Gov. David Paterson, Sen. Tom Duane, NYC City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and more showed up to the second protest in two nights, this time at Union Square.
Andy Towle of Towleroad guessed that possibly more than a thousand people showed up to voice their dissatisfaction with New York's senate voting down the marriage bill 24-38. A bill that had passed the Assembly three times. A bill on which eight democratic senators, who have their jobs because of major LGBT support, voted against.
Yeah, I'd be protesting, too.
Sen. Tom Duane rightfully gets "angry at the betrayal."
The crowd.
Joe.My.God said of the rally and the forthcoming backlash:
Throughout the crowd and from the stage, threats of retribution rained down on the "Hate 38," the Senators that voted against equality. Particular scorn was heaped upon the eight traitorous Democrats, whose faces adorn many placards and who were named and shamed from the microphone. Hearty cheers went up whenever our new heroes like Sen. Ruth Hassell-Thompson were mentioned. The crowd was instructed about the coming 2010 elections and the NYC seats now in everyone's crosshairs. The evening was definitely not another useless venting of rage, as these things are often characterized.
John R. Bohrer of Blue Jersey has done a great podcast on what is going down in New Jersey. Due to massive lobbying coordinated by Garden State Equality, the state Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on the New Jersey marriage bill Monday. It must get through them before it goes to the full senate. If it does, the full senate will vote Thursday
NJ.com is reporting that the Senate Judiciary Committee will take up the proposal and vote on it Monday. Without this committee's approval, the bill won't make it to the full Senate for a vote.
"On Monday in the Judiciary Committee, we're going to vote on marriage equality," [Sen. Ray] Lesniak (D-Union) said, while making the announcement to a crowd of more than 650 gay marriage supporters on the Statehouse steps today.
"On Thursday (Dec. 10) the full Senate is going to vote on marriage equality," said Lesniak, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "And God be willing, we'll have 21 votes."
Recently, Sen. Paul Sarlo, who chairs the committee, said ". . . we do not have the votes in the Judiciary Committee," said Sarlo. "Until somebody can demonstrate that we have the votes in the Judiciary Committee, it will not be posted."
Hopefully now that they plan on taking up the proposal, it indicates that things have shifted and the votes may now be secure.
Today’s vote against Marriage Equality makes me very angry. Promises made were not honored. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, and all fair-minded New Yorkers have been betrayed. I am enraged, deeply disappointed and profoundly saddened by the vote today.
In 2006, when the New York State Court of Appeals shamefully ruled that the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community did not have equal protection under the law in relation to Marriage Equality, I predicted that passing legislation to right this wrong in the State Senate would be a profound personal and sadly political battle.
I have been proven right.
Yet there is an irony in today’s vote. Five years ago no one would have predicted that a vote would even be possible in the Senate. Today, on the floor of the Senate, we had an open and honest debate about the indignity of denying Marriage Equality to thousands of New York’s LGBT citizens. We heard stories of family members and friends who have suffered merely because they are gay. Only one Senator, who opposed marriage, spoke on behalf of that position. Again, an honest debate of which only one side, sadly not the winning side, represented justice and equality.
Now that this discussion has started in the Senate, it cannot be stopped. We will see Marriage Equality pass in New York. Yes, not today, but in the near future -- openly and with bi-partisan support.
I want to applaud those friends and advocates in the LGBT community who insisted on a vote, regardless of the outcome. This was very brave and it was the right thing to do. I was honored to bring the bill to the floor of the Senate, for an up or down vote, with their support.
Today also brought home the fact that the State Senate must maintain a Democratic majority– and in even greater numbers. It was only under Democratic leadership that this vote was possible. We must also have a Governor willing to sign marriage equality into law.
Most importantly I am grateful to all my Democratic colleagues who spoke so eloquently in favor of marriage equality and all those who voted in the affirmative. I also believe in redemption, even for State Senators who need that chance.
I am confident that we will win the fight for marriage equality in New York State.
Within hours of yesterday's devastating vote, 200 to 300 protesters crowded into Times Square despite the cold rain to voice their disappointment with the Senate's failure to stand up for civil rights.
UPDATE 5 5:16p PST: CNN reports that Marist College poll released same day as Senate vote finds that a majority of New Yorkers support marriage equality 51-42%. Only if their representatives would've listened instead of voted with cowardice.
UPDATE 4 2:44p PST:NY Daily News reports lead sponsor Sen. Tom Duane's response. (H/T Towleroad)
"I wasn't expected to be betrayed, and so I have some justified anger," Duane said. "But it's just going to propel me to - I don't want to say redouble my efforts, because my efforts have been pretty strong - but I'm not going to let up."
I'm angry. I'm disappointed. I am let down. I'm betrayed. But I am not going away."
"Unfortunately, I think there was a contagious lack of backbone that occurred here today. And I’m angry about that and sad about that, but it was contagious. Similarly, the opposite would have meant far more votes than anyone had expected but unfortunately that wasn’t the way it went today."
UPDATE 3 2:21p PST: New York's largest LGBT advocacy group, Empire State Pride Agenda, responds to today's vote.
After months and months of tumultuous back and forth power struggles, political maneuvers and looming budget issues, New York's Senate finally got it together enough to vote on the marriage equality bill. Unfortunately, they failed history and civil rights by voting against it 24-38.
These eight Democrats helped defeat the bill:
• Joseph Addabbo (D-Queens) - NO • Darrel Aubertine (D- Cape Vincent) - NO • Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx) - NO • Shirley Huntley (D-Queens) - NO • Carl Kruger (D-Brooklyn) - NO • Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens) - NO • George Onorato (D-Queens) - NO • William Stachowski (D-Buffalo) - NO
Openly gay Sen. Tom Duane, lead sponsor for the bill, opened the debate on the marriage bill by telling his fellow senators that voting for the bill will make him equal to his colleagues in every way.
Anti-gay Sen. Ruben Diaz, who was two gay brothers and lesbian sister, said a vote for the marriage equality bill would be "treason." He went on to list all the states that passed same-sex marriage bans, and then reminded the Senate that all the states that do have marriage equality only have it because a court ordered it or the legislature and not the people.
Sen. Diaz concluded by urging the Senate to let the people of New York decide the matter and then proclaimed, "This is the day that the Lord has made."
He was the only senator to speak against the bill.
Sen. Eric Schneiderman said this isn't about morality. "You can't legislate morality," he said, "but you can legislate justice."
Sen. Schneiderman went on to say, "Every generation is called to this quintessential challenge of making Thomas Jefferson's words more true."
Hear Sen. Schneiderman's speech.
Sen. Eric Adams believed Sen. Diaz was speaking "from his heart and not his mind." Then he went on to list states that sold "blacks into slavery" and said, "Just because a numerical majority is in one place, it doesn't mean they are in the right place."
Sen. Adams implored his colleagues to read the comments made against African Americans and their right to marry and they will see they are the same being used against gays and lesbians and their right to marry.
Ending his powerful speech, Sen. Adams said, "You don't have to be gay to respect the rights of those who are."
Hear Sen. Adams' speech.
Sen. Jeffrey Klein, Deputy Majority Leader, started off apologizing that it took so long to vote on marriage and said the senators should not be afraid to vote their conscience.
"We owe it to the entire gay community around New York to pass this legislation," Sen. Klein said. He went on to argue the economical advantage of marriage equality, stating that it will benefit New York to the tune of $200 million over the next three years.
Sen. David Valesky, who was undecided, asked why marriage equality was such a difficult issue. He concluded it was because it was extremely emotional and that senators owe to themselves to listen, to research and peel away the layers and get to the facts.
Sen. Valesky went on to say that marriage equality "can't be a matter of religion." Nothing on the senate floor "can be done in violation of the United States Constitution." The marriage bill could never, in any way shape or form, compel any house of worship to go against their religious beliefs.
"This bill is about a civil, legal commitment that provides benefits to same-sex couples and for this reason I will be voting in favor" of marriage equality, concluded Sen. Valesky.
Sen. Kevin Parker followed, stating "We have an opportunity to change our history. This is the time we strike a blow to one of the last inequalities in our country . . . Stand for marriage equality now because it is the right thing to do and now is the time to do it.."
Senate Majority Leader Pedro Espada Jr. said, "If this vote was taken in my district today, marriage equality would fail." But he added that this wasn't about demographics. "My mind has been made up. It was made up a long time ago."
"This is a vote of conscience," Sen. Espada added. "I believe it is morally correct to vote 'yes.'... Let's not be scared into ignorance to think that it is not morally correct."
Sen. Diane Savino said she was nervous not because she doesn't how she was going to vote but because she didn't know what the outcome of the vote would be, a rarity for the New York Senate.
"This vote is about an issue of fairness and equality, not political," she said. "I hope we are going to make history here today." She went on to make a great speech about the farce the heterosexuals have made of marriage.
Sen. Liz Krueger said voting yes "is not a hard vote for me. I never had to think twice." Holding back tears, she said she knew about discrimination because she's a Jewish woman. "My religion says I must vote yes today."
Sen. Daniel Squadron said he wanted all New Yorkers to have the joy of marrying the one they love, as he recently did.
Sen. Velmanette Montgomery said that in the older days, religious belief dictated that people living together outside of marriage was considered sin. "For those of you who wonder why we should support people being able to marry, we do not want them living in sin."
"The churches would not exist without choir directors, many of whom are gay," she went on to say, talking about her constituents. "They would like to have the right to marry . . . I am going to vote so you have every right that every other citizen has."
Sen. Jose Serrano opened his speech by saying, "This is truly a wonderful day . . . Extending civil rights . . . will make our communities stronger . . . No one should be subjugated to less rights than anyone else." He added, "History once again will prove this civil rights movement to be right and correct."
Sen. Ruth Hassell-Thompson, who had thus far been undecided, for the first time declared her brother was gay. Her brother had disappeared from his family because their mother was a pastor and his parents did not accept him. After a long search, she found him and told how he suffered the death of his partner and the struggle he faced because they did not have the right of married couples.
Hear Sen. Hassell-Thompson's speech.
Referring to her sister who is now a pastor, Sen. Hassell-Thompson said her sibling would not agree with how she was going to vote. "No one elected me to be moral arbiter of their choices. But they did elect me to be a leader," she declared.
Referring to the many calls she received from her constituents, she said, "I am going to vote so you have every right that every other citizen has . . . I will be voting yes today."
Sen. Craig Thompson said, "This is about love and two individuals who love each other . . . this is about civil marriage!"
Sen. Bill Perkins thanked the LGBT rights movement for their vigilance and their push on the Senate to get them to vote on the marriage bill. "More than half the people in this room would not be here at another point in time. Marriage equality is here. And it is inevitable . . . It is inevitable that we will be successful . . . it is a change that is going to come. MLK is looking down on us today . . . I vote Aye."
Sen. Suzi Oppenheimer asked, "Some people have said to me [same-sex marriage] diminishes their marriage. I don't understand that. Why would it diminish my marriage?"
"Please don't quote the Bible or refer to it if you are not clear on what it really means," said Senate President Pro Tempore Malcolm Smith, who had earlier denied the marriage bill to come to the senate floor for a vote. "The Bible does not say that same-sex marriage is wrong . . . What's wrong is when you use the Bible for your own purposes."
He added, "When you experience discrimination, it hurts."
Openly gay and lead sponsor Sen. Tom Duane closed the debate. "To my [undecided] colleagues, there is still time to feel my gratitude in its fullness!"
Tearing up, Sen. Duane said, "Thank you for letting me have my rage . . . my sadness . . . my office is always a cry safety zone."
"The time is never right for civil rights. But the paradox is, it's always the time to be on the right side of history," Sen. Duane continued. "We are beating New Jersey today. Unfortunately, we are behind Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont - I may have left one out," he laughed. Well, the list is getting longer.
"I don't give up. I don't know how to," he went on.
Sen. Tom Duane had to stall the vote by extending his speech several minutes. Joe.My.God reports that the Republicans were pulled out and being strong-armed into voting against the bill.
As he voted, Sen. Diaz told his colleagues not to leave their Bibles behind and said he stood alongside Bill Clinton in voting against marriage equality.
Sen. Duane, when he stood to vote, corrected Sen. Diaz, reminding the senate that Bill Clinton has changed his position and now supports marriage for gays and lesbians.
Unfortunately, it appears most of the senators either clutched their Bibles or voted in fear for their jobs.
Yet because the Senate is expected to vote on their version of the bill today (I'll believe it when I see it) in an extraordinary session (not a regular one), the Assembly had to vote on the bill again Tuesday night to clear all hurdles for its passage.
Just a few moments ago, the New York State Assembly passed marriage equality legislation for the second time this year in a bipartisan vote of 86 to 51. By taking a vote in what is called an “extraordinary session,” the Assembly has removed any obstacle to the bill being sent to the Governor for his signature if the Senate votes on the bill when it reconvenes tomorrow to conduct business.
The Pride Agenda gives special thanks to the New York State Assembly, under the leadership of Speaker Sheldon Silver, that has now voted and passed the marriage equality bill three times. Our thanks also to the legislation’s prime sponsor Assemblymember Danny O’Donnell for leading the successful effort again on the floor.
It is anticipated that forces opposing marriage equality may be coming to Albany tomorrow to put pressure on the State Senate to take no action on the bill. We continue to expect the Senate to give this issue the respectful debate and vote it deserves.
According to the Times Union report yesterday, "The Senate is prepared to hold the long-delayed vote on gay marriage if the deficit reduction package can be put to bed in time tomorrow. Since the bill would pass in extraordinary session, the Assembly would have to debate and vote on the measure despite the fact that it passed marriage equality legislation months ago."
But Elizabeth Benjamin of the New York Daily News says that the deal on the budget may be falling apart, resulting in the marriage vote to be put on hold yet again. Shock.
The bill has faced stiff opposition from the Archdiocese of Washington who threatened to end their charitable work in the district if it passed. Since the church receives public funds due to contracts with the city, they said they would be forced to give benefits to gay employees' spouses and objected. The Council has tried to find a common ground with the church but has not given any indication that a lack of resolution would keep them from passing marriage equality.
Some 200 prominent New Jersey Democrats are urging the Legislature to vote on a gay marriage bill.
The Democrats , including members of Congress, fundraisers and lobbyists , released a letter to leaders in the Senate and Assembly Tuesday demanding the bill be voted up or down before the lame-duck session ends in January.
We believe that equality and fairness are fundamental principles of New Jersey's Democratic Party, and that is why we call on the state legislature to vote immediately on, and pass, the marriage equality bill.
New Jersey has a proud history of supporting civil rights. It was this legacy that encouraged many of us to become involved in politics. We believe that allowing committed gay and lesbian couples to marry is, at its core, about treating our family members, friends, coworkers, and neighbors with dignity and respect.
We appreciate that this is a difficult issue for some state legislators. But marriage equality is an idea whose time has come. We are confident that the voters will stand by those elected officials who do the right thing.
When our children and grandchildren look back on this moment, we want to be able to tell them that we, too, did the right thing.
As Martin Luther King poignantly reminded us, "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice." That is why we're proud to lend our names and our voices to this important cause. We do so in our capacity as private citizens and Democratic voters, and not on behalf of any particular office or organization.
"The letter to Democratic legislators was signed by a combination of veteran party leaders, young staffers, major fundraisers, political consultants and operatives, and local elected officials," reports the PolitickerNJ, who has a full list of signers, which include Newark Mayor Cory Booker and U.S. Reps. Rush Holt, Frank Pallone and Steven Rothman.
Posts
I put this out on Twitter earlier today because I didn't have time to put up a post, but for those who don't follow UTF on Twitter, here's the great news from the Honolulu Advertiser:
