Primary elections may be key to NY equality

Timothy Kincaid

December 2nd, 2009

I am not particularly receptive to the argument that a representative can be excused at times for voting in a way that might not reflect their own views, but which is required to keep their seat. I think that equality is worth defending even if it requires personal sacrifice.

However, I have nothing but contempt for those who elect to endorse discrimination and bias even when there is no downside to siding with decency and equality.

And of the eight Democrats who voted to deny equal civil rights to their fellow New Yorkers, five were elected in 2008 with no organized opposition in the general election. They were either unopposed, or had only a token Republican opponent who received but a tiny percentage of the votes:

    32nd • Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx)
    10th • Shirley Huntley (D-Queens)
    27th • Carl Kruger (D-Brooklyn)
    13th • Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens)
    12th • George Onorato (D-Queens)

These are definitely not elected officials who secretly support us but were fearful of Republicans using that support against us. No, these Senators voted against our equality because they believe that we are inferior to them and that we don’t deserve the same rights that they enjoy.

The other three won by the following percentages:

    15th • Joseph Addabbo (D-Queens) — 58%
    48th • Darrel Aubertine (D- Cape Vincent) — 53%
    58th • William Stachowski (D-Buffalo) — 53%

While these are not landslides, they are comfortable majorities.

All of which suggests to me that an organized primary fight in which a supporter of equality could prevail might be all that is necessary in most of these districts to bring about marriage equality in New York in the very near future.

As Joe Jarvis at Joe-My-God seems to be on the same page:

Remember all of these names. I will be coming back to you to help fund their opponents.

Burr

December 2nd, 2009

If they could do it in Massachusetts they can do it in New York. Even intelligent, non-bigoted Republicans would do the trick. Looking at the favorable polls in NY, bigotry has to be a losing stance in many of these districts.

Roger

December 2nd, 2009

Excellent analysis, Timothy. I think we should also consider fielding, supporting, and funding pro-equality Democratic opponents to run against those Republicans (all of which voted “No” today) that won their prior elections by narrow margins. Those folks are fair game for being targeted for replacement as well.

CB

December 3rd, 2009

Never support a political party, only support individuals who support you. When you give to a political party, you give to ALL candidates that party represents. As we saw here, eight of them are not supportive of gay equality. I hope people remember the “Hate dash 8” (H8-8) Democrats.

Below are a couple signs I quickly drafted..

http://u1.imgupload.co.uk/1259798400/02da_lgbt_nyvote.jpg
http://u1.imgupload.co.uk/1259798400/66ba_lgbt_nyvote2.jpg

cd

December 4th, 2009

Wellllll….

I’ve been watching the NY state Senate for a couple of years in anticipation of their being the major obstacle to gay marriage legalization. There were about 28 votes for passage in the spring.

I’d give the latter three Senators a pass. Addabbo is a freshman representing a sadly conservative, ethnic Italian district in the Bronx and Queens. (Bush won it, McCain almost did iirc.) I think he’s on the right side of this but when he saw it couldn’t pass, given the screwy rage in the electorate he chose to play it safe.

Aubertine and Stachowski are from the west side of the Appalachians. Which is to say, on the other- conservative- side of the cultural split in New York State. Both aren’t safe in their districts (Aubertine’s is Republican, Stachowski’s a swing district) and are about as well as Democrats can do given the Republican-favoring gerrymandering of the state. Basically, we can’t reasonably expect any votes in favor of gay marriage from senators representing western New York. Antoine Thompson’s commitment and vote in favor are a gift.

In short, imo all the votes in favor in the next few years in the state Senate, but one, will come (and have to come) from senators representing the Hudson Valley, the City, or Long Island.

Diaz and Monserrate represent poor, socially quite conservative, City districts and said loudly early on that they’d never vote to legalize gay marriage. IIRC Diaz was actually a minister. They and Espada were the main figures in the ‘coup’ in the state Senate this spring and are implicated in some serious corruption as well- that’s quite enough for them to get primaried by the state Party. Though chances are they’ll retire or flip in party identity before the primary elections. They epitomize that the corruption in the chamber concentrated on the Republican side under Joe Bruno, but definitely occurred on the Democratic side as well.

Huntley represents a poor black district and iirc has cited personal religious reasons for inability to support gay marriage. Onorato’s opposition is news to me- I hadn’t heard of him as a no vote before or in trouble for reelection; I’ll have to look into his explanation. Carl Kruger is a problem conservative Democrat representing a fairly safely Democratic district; quite a few Democrats in New York wouldn’t mind him losing a primary.

What’s missing from the picture here is: Republican state Senators in relatively liberal/Democratic voting districts to replace with pro-marriage candidates probably Democrats. That list begins with some of the seven incumbent Republicans on Long Island other than LaValle and Hannon (who are safe), the two remaining in the Five Boroughs other than Lanza (who is safe on Staten Island), and the half dozen whose districts are on or within 20 miles of the Hudson between Westchester and Saratoga.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Jubal

Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.