Comments on: New NY Senate President Supports Marriage

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:02:17 +0000

tavdy,

Espada was one of the Gang of Three, but his issue wasn’t marriage. He wanted more power for Hispanics (ie himself) in the Senate.

Skelos is almost certainly a “no” vote. But he promised Log Cabin that he wouldn’t block a vote and that he would let Republicans vote their conscience.

But I think you are spot-on in suggesting that Skelos could be gloating at the opportunity to make the Democratic power players appear as having sold out gays. That’s the sort of strategy that can actually pay off in NY.

By: tavdy79

tavdy79 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:17:11 +0000

Espada Jr. was one of the original “gang of three” that blocked Smith’s election over the gay marriage bill, so evidently someone has been doing a lot of legwork in NYC to convince him to change his position. Since Skelos is a Long Island Republican, and so one of the Repubs being targeted as possible “yes” votes, I wouldn’t be surprised if Skelos does bring the gay marriage bill to the NY senate floor – he could well have relatively little to lose. Skelos was first elected to the NY senate in 1982, and a constituency can change a lot in 27 years.

I certainly put it past Espada Jr. (and Monserrate if he’s also a yes vote) to have cut a deal with Skelos – again, because Espada has tried exactly the same thing (albeit in reverse) on this very topic before. It doesn’t make sense to me for Espada to change allegiances like this otherwise since his earlier threat to caucus with the Repubs was based on a position he has now reversed. The possibility of it leading to the shaming of both Diaz (for failing to block the bill) and Smith (for failing to get the bill to the floor himself) in the eyes of Dem voters may be an additional sweetener for Skelos.

By: cd

cd — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:59:20 +0000

I like that finally putting people on the record part. It has a strong clarifying effect.

Whether and how long these rules and good intentions last remains to be seen, though. I’m more confident about New Jersey lawmakers acting late this year.

By: Burr

Burr — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:51:16 +0000

There’s no harm in a vote even if it loses. It’s not a court case. No precedent. It makes the job of passing it later on easier as we’ll know who to put the pressure on.

By: Lindoro Almaviva

Lindoro Almaviva — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:06:58 +0000

You know? I don’t think this is such a bad thing. If the democrats can muster the votes, it would be a first: a republican controlled legislature passing a marriage equality bill.

I kind of like the ring of that.