Marriage Equality Debate Discussion

Adams making powerful (4.00 / 1)

comparison to interracial marriage debate.

---

by: Jrathman @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 11:45:08 AM CST

Adams again (0.00 / 0)

"You don't have to be gay to respect the rights of those that are."

That was one of the most compelling few minutes of discussion I've heard yet.

---

by: Jrathman @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 11:52:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Watching it without sound (0.00 / 0)

So I appreciate any live-blogging comments.  Adam Bink is also live-blogging it at OpenLeft:

http://www.openleft.com/diary/...

"Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority."



-William Jennings Bryan

---

by: BingChester @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 11:49:57 AM CST

Diaz (D-Religion) called the bill "Treason" (4.00 / 3)

Sheesh. If there is a Senator we need to work on, it's him...

ReBootNY.org will be looking into it.

We've got some work ahead of us.

---

by: NYBri @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 11:57:26 AM CST

no, he did not call the *bill*"treaon*l (0.00 / 0)

"to not comply with what you promise is wrong!" he yelled, seemingly angry at [sic] the malcolm smith for not bringing a bill to the floor that he has no intention of voting on. "it's treason!"  (snipped from the village voice)

he accused senate president pro tempore malcolm smith of going back on his jpromise not to bring gay marriage to the floor.  "To go back on your word is treason," Diaz  (from tu's capitol confidential blog)
diaz is not calling the bill "treason."  he is calling the action of smith bringing the bill to the floor for vote after (allegedly)promising to not bring the bill to the floor for vote "treason."  smith breaking his (alleged) promise, not the bill itself, is what diaz is accusing of treason - and by extension, calling malcolm smith - not the bill - "treasonous"

this is not a matter of nuance.  words and the context in which they are used do mean something.  

diaz accusing malcolm smith of treason is a fine example of hyperbole.  i am absolutely positive diaz has never, EVER gone back on promises he has made...unless it was beneficial for him to do so, of course  (rolling my eyes)
i agree that he needs to go - i think of him as the senate's version of the assembly's (thankfully) retired arthur eve.

somewhat tangentally:  as i am not one of the constituents diaz may or may not represent, i have no business having a dog his re-election fight.  i am not naive about the workings of what passes for our state government.  it is corrupt to its core, a system in which there are few exceptions to "money talks no matter how much the constituents talk, where the campaign for re-election is perpetual, where legislation is rarely brought to the floor unless passage is assured, where legislators can hide from their respnsibilities to their constituents, choosing instead to place their loyalties and future elections in the hands of their party puppetmasters and assorted cash rich lobbies.

it is disgusting and saddening to be witness to how far removed from a representative democracy our legislature has become.  the finest example of this i know of is the legislatively printed pamphlet "how a bill becomes law"
it would be ironic comedy of the highest degree if how that process is described were remotely related to how a bill really becomes a law.  

though i am not delusional, i cannnot rid myself of my
nasty altruistic belief that regardless of party, an elected official should represent the will of the people who put them in office, not the will of the party or promises of pork or fear of having perpetual campaign contributions cut off by voting against those who lobby for legislation that a constituency for or voting for legislation a constituency is against.

if there is no clear concensus amongst a representative's constituancy, that representative is theoretically charged with the responsiblity and duty of voting his or conscience, thn let the voting chips fall where they may.  that, however, requires a backbone - a crucial part of anatomy largely absent in representatives in both chambers.

ok, rant over, and apologies for being a mere citizen in a land of would-be kings.

- d.

---

by: didactic @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 19:17:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Valesky's a yes vote! (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Jrathman @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 12:05:45 PM CST

Big news (4.00 / 1)

That's one of the Dems we NEEDED to keep.  If we can get Huntley or Onorato and swing Stackowski then we're in GREAT shape.  If not, we need to put more pressure on a few of the swing Republican voters.

"Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority."



-William Jennings Bryan

---

by: BingChester @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 12:12:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Senator Savino... (0.00 / 0)

...very personal argument and very down-to-earth. Very nice.

We've got some work ahead of us.

---

by: NYBri @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 12:25:19 PM CST

So Far, the only vote that we were looking at... (0.00 / 0)

was Valesky's. Looking to see Aubertine, Stach, and Huntley.

We've got some work ahead of us.

---

by: NYBri @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 12:40:04 PM CST

I'm very interested to see the justification (0.00 / 0)

of NO votes by Dems.  I can only hope they they don't sound as biggoted as Diaz did.

---

by: Jrathman @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 12:57:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That Ruth Hassell-Thompson story (4.00 / 2)

was very, very powerful.


"Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority."



-William Jennings Bryan

---

by: BingChester @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 12:51:49 PM CST

Tom Duane is speaking (0.00 / 0)

Let's not forget:

We've got some work ahead of us.

---

by: NYBri @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 13:24:05 PM CST

Duane: "We'e beating New Jersey today" (4.00 / 1)

Hilarious.

---

by: phil @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 13:27:46 PM CST

Yes, that was funny, but now... (0.00 / 0)

I'm going to have to turn this off because I am starting to cry here at work, dammit. I love my state senator.

---

by: greenheron @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 13:34:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bill Stachowski (0.00 / 0)

Bill Stachowski's Buffalo office today said he is "probably not" supporting.

---

by: Hamburg @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 13:43:49 PM CST

So let's call (0.00 / 0)

and try to convince him!

---

by: Jrathman @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 13:47:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

please post the final vote (0.00 / 0)

what 8 dems and no Rs?  

---

by: jmcbride @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 14:02:32 PM CST

As far as I could hear: (4.00 / 1)

Adams, Eric - yes
Addabbo, Joseph - couldn't hear
Alesi, James S. - no
Aubertine, Darrel J. - yes
Bonacic, John J. - no
Breslin, Neil D. - yes
DeFrancisco, John A. - no
Diaz, Ruben - no
Dilan, Martin Malavé - no
Duane, Thomas - yes
Espada, Pedro, Jr. - yes
Farley, Hugh T. - no
Flanagan, John J. - no
Foley, Brian X - yes
Fuschillo, Charles J., Jr. - no
Golden, Martin J. - no
Griffo, Joseph A. - no
Hannon, Kemp - no
Hassell-Thompson, Ruth - yes
Huntley, Shirley L. - no
Johnson, Craig M. - yes
Johnson, Owen H. - no
Klein, Jeffrey D. - yes
Krueger, Liz - yes
Kruger, Carl - no
Lanza, Andrew J - no
Larkin, William J., Jr. - no
LaValle, Kenneth P. - no
Leibell, Vincent L. - no
Libous, Tom - no
Little, Elizabeth - no
Marcellino, Carl L - no
Maziarz, George D. - no
McDonald, Roy J. - no
Monserrate, Hiram - no
Montgomery, Velmanette - yes
Morahan, Thomas P. - no
Nozzolio, Michael F. - no
Onorato, George - no
Oppenheimer, Suzi -yes
Padavan, Frank - no
Parker, Kevin S. - yes
Perkins, Bill - yes
Ranzenhofer, Michael H. - no
Robach, Joseph E. - no
Saland, Stephen M. - no
Sampson, John L. - yes
Savino, Diane J. - yes
Schneiderman, Eric T. -yes
Serrano, Jose M. - yes
Seward, James L. - no
Skelos, Dean G. - no
Smith, Malcolm A. - yes
Squadron, Daniel L - yes
Stachowski, William T. - no
Stavisky, Toby Ann - yes
Stewart-Cousins, Andrea - yes
Thompson, Antoine M - yes
Valesky, David J. - yes
Volker, Dale M. - no
Winner, George H., Jr. - no
Young, Catharine - no

We've got some work ahead of us.

---

by: NYBri @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 14:05:42 PM CST

Aubertine voted yes? (0.00 / 0)

a pleasant surprise.

---

by: Jrathman @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 14:08:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Dilan voted no? (0.00 / 0)

Wasn't he a co-sponsor? That doesn't seem right.

---

by: RhubarbStevens @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 14:10:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here is the final (4.00 / 1)

Ayes 24, Nays 38. Republicans didn't say a word.

Yea Eric Adams (D)

Nay Joe Addabbo (D)

Nay Jim Alesi (R)

Nay Darrel Aubertine (D)

Nay John Bonacic (R)

Yea Neil Breslin (D)

Nay John DeFrancisco (D)

Nay Ruben Diaz Sr. (D)

Yea Martin Malave Dilan (D)

Yea Tom Duane (D)

Yea Pedro Esapda Jr. (D)

Nay Hugh Farley (R)

John Flanagan (R)

Yes Brian Foley (D)

No Chuck Fuschillo (R)

No Marty Golden (R)

No Joe Griffo (R)

No Kemp Hannon (R)

Yes Ruth Hassell-Thompson (D)

No Shirley Huntley (D)

Yes Craig Johnson (D)

No Owen Johnson (R)

Yes Jeff Klein (D)

Yes Liz Krueger (D)

No Carl Kruger (D)

No Andrew Lanza (R)

No Bill Larkin (R)

No Ken LaValle (R)

No Vincent Leibell (R)

No Tom Libous (R)

No Betty Little (R)

No Carl Marcellino (R)

No George Maziarz (R)

No Roy McDonald (R)

No Hiram Monserrate (D)

Yes Velmanette Montgomery (D)

No Tom Morahan (R)

No Mike Nozzolio (R)

No George Onorato (D)

Yes Suzi Oppenheimer (D)

No Frank Padavan (R)

Yes Kevin Parker (D)

Yes Bill Perkins (D)

No Mike Ranzenhofer (R)

No Joe Robach

No Saland

Yes John Sampson

Yes Diane Savino

Yes Eric Schneiderman

Yes Jose M. Serrano

No Jim Seward

No Dan Skelos

Yes Malcolm Smith

Yes Daniel Squadron

No Bill Stachowski

Yes Toby Ann Stavisky

Yes Andrea Stewart-Cousins

We've got some work ahead of us.

---

by: NYBri @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 14:16:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

guess not... (0.00 / 0)

oh well.

---

by: Jrathman @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 14:19:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]