Interesting news from a colleague in NY:
The long stalled NY Senate bill (it’s passed the Assembly twice and the Gov is eager to sign) extending full marriage rights to same sex couples will be brought to the floor today, debated extensively and almost certainly passed (with a handful of GOP votes.) The Senate will be streaming the entire debate live at http://www.NYSenate.gov/. (There’s live commentary at The Albany Project as well for those outside of NY who may want to know what all that debating actually means.)
The long and the short of it is that we’ve been told that they have the votes to pass the the thing and, unlike CA and ME, there ain’t gonna be a round two in NY.
Some helpful links:
http://open.nysenate.gov/legis… (link to the actual bill on NY’s spiffy new Open Legislation site, comments enabled, btw.)
http://www.nysenate.gov/initia… (special page for all things marriage equality, will become the actual front page of the site when the trigger gets pulled. Will be live shortly.)
http://www.nysenate.gov/blogs/… (blog with a video viewer and comments. will be live shortly.)
http://www.thealbanyproject.com (your source for all the commentary and analysis)
http://www.thealbanyproject.co… (A whip count of where we are )
You can also follow the Senate debate on Twitter at @NYSenate. (Use the #NYMarriageDebate hashtag)
They are going to allow the full four hours of debate on the bill and then each member (there are 62) will be allowed 2 minutes each to explain their vote. I imagine that most if not all will take advantage of that. TAP will be doing a running tally of votes during this time so we should know pretty close to the exact count before the vote is actually taken.
It’s going to be a big day here in NY. Hope you all will tune in.
<
p>Is there no ability for citizen petition? Is support in NY that much stronger than CA, even in an off-year special election or an election where Dem enthusiasm is so much lower than GOP enthusiasm?
<
p>Could “you” justify the claim?
<
p>
<
p> * “you” because David posted a blockquote. I don’t know or care who “you” is; I just want someone to make the case.
I am reliably informed that, indeed, there is not.
That’s pretty dang cool.
<
p>I’d add that there’s no guarantee that the people won’t democratically elect anti-marriage legislators in 2010 and overturn the law… so the “round two” could be in the lege of course.
but unlikely, since (again, I am informed) that most legislators would be delighted never to have to deal with this issue again, and a massive anti-marriage turnover in the lege seems unlikely.
that senators (and members of the house) who represent liberal districts and voted no face tough primary challengers.
argue against SSM because “the people” didn’t choose it — the courts and the legislators chose it.
<
p>I can’t help but wonder what Rev. MLKJr would think about letting the people of America (or Alabama) decide about civil rights.
Whether it is through referendum on budgets or through odious bills restricting civil rights-it is a method by which the prejudices of the majority can be imposed upon a minority which if you think about it is really not democratic at all-at least in the liberal democratic sense. I oppose all citizens initiative’s, they are horrible ideas.
However much I loathe use of the citizen’s initiative to roll back civil rights for LGBT persons, the citizen’s initiative has also been our sole and only genuine avenue towards Clean Elections, towards identifying incinerators for what they truly are rather than as the “green” or “clean” technology the Patrick administration pretends it is, and towards marijuana decriminalization.
<
p>I will agree that it ought not be means by which “the prejudices of the majority can be imposed upon a minority”, and luckily within the Commonwealth the Courts apparently agree. Within a one party state especially, the citizen’s initiative stands right up there with the time honored principle of juror nullification as the best – and often only – means for popular redress of grievances.
To me its not just that I dislike it because of the gay rights votes, I just feel that it goes against the founding spirit of the country. Maybe I have just been stuck with too much political theory but I would argue that Edmund Burke, Montesquieu, James Madison were right and Barbara Anderson was wrong. The citizens when the act en masse to enact legislation are doing so with little information, little means of wisely selecting policies, and worst of all its akin to mob rule which if one takes the next logical leap beyond that isn’t particularly democratic as well. Their is a reason the founders roundly condemned democracy because in their minds it was the equivalent of anarchy and you can just look at CA and see that they are basically right. I trust my legislators which is why I elect them to be my virtual representative in my houses of governance. My representative at the end of the day is accountable to the voters and to the rule of law-who is the mob accountable to?
Just because the process has led to some good outcomes does not make it a good process. I think I will trust the judgment of Montesquieu, Madison, and Edmund Burke over the opinions of Barbara Anderson. The people are too capricious, fickle, and prejudiced to make reasoned forward thinking decisions on the issues of the day. The initiative process is akin to a dictatorship of the majority or essentially a glorified version of mob rule.
When people start voting on whether you can get married, adopt kids, and be with your loved ones when they are sick.
Lolz
Senator Duane started to claim that former State-Senator Obama supported gay marriage but backed down.
Marriage Equality lost big time: 24 – 38. Only picked up one, maybe two swing votes.
The NY Senate has 32 Dems, 30 GOPs.
<
p>Pro gay marriage:
Dem 24-8
GOP 0-30
<
p>lost 24-38.
<
p>There were rumors that a few GOPers were prepared to vote for equality, and it was known that a few Dems would go against.
<
p>May the primary force be strong in NY. All NY state senators are up for election every 2 years.
Those Republicans sure hate marriage.