New NY Senate President Wants Vote on Same-Sex Marriage

[t0dd]

New York Times
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/new-senate-president-wants-vote-on-same-sex-marriage/

ALBANY — Pedro Espada Jr., the new State Senate president, said in a radio interview on Tuesday morning that he personally wanted to bring same-sex marriage to a vote, news that will give some encouragement to gay activists who read defeat into Monday’s Republican Senate coup.

Mr. Espada also said he intended to fire the Senate’s highest-ranking Democratic staff member, Angelo Aponte, who as secretary of the Senate was the top aide to Malcolm A. Smith, the former majority leader. And Mr. Espada, a Bronx Democrat, would not commit to supporting Gov. David A. Paterson’s electoral bid next year.

His comments, on Talk 1300 AM, reflected the abrupt political upheaval that took place on Monday, when Mr. Espada and Hiram Monserrate, a Queens Democrat, formed a governing coalition with the Senate Republicans after pulling off a coup on the Senate floor. Mr. Espada, who has had a history of legal troubles, would become governor if Mr. Paterson were incapacitated.

“I am for same-sex marriage,” Mr. Espada said. “There will be no guarantees and no quid pro quos, I think there will be a vote of conscience of the senators. And with my partner in government, Senator Skelos, we have not discussed bringing it out to the floor. I’m expressing my own personal desire to see a full debate and decision on this matter.”

The Senate majority leader, Dean G. Skelos, a Long Island Republican who is sharing power with Mr. Espada under the new leadership arrangement, said he and Mr. Espada would discuss the issue of same-sex marriage and other matters later on Tuesday.

...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I dunno

I still think this is a ploy to shoot down gay marriage and stop the momentum that has been building for gay rights.

[Me.]

2. Exactly

Mark my words, they're trying to game the issue and bring it to defeat

[t0dd]

3. Of the two disloyal democrats, Espada is a supporter of same-sex marriage

and was listed as a sponsor of the bill. It was not the cause of the leadership change.

[galledgoblin]

6. yeah... even if Espada really is a supporter,

the shift has emboldened conservatives who may have been leaning towards a "yes" vote.

there's no way enough yes votes can be pulled together this year for a win and a no vote may mean stalling out for several more years.

:banghead: :argh: :cry:

[Fearless]

4. I remember a civil rights act from years back which a rethug added women's equality to...

in an effort to scuttle it, which in the end passed and lost the rethugs more than they had bargained for. I forget which one... It'll come to me in the shower tonight I'm sure.

[keepCAblue]

5. That was the big one: The Civil Rights Act of 1964...

From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

The prohibition on sex discrimination was added by Howard W. Smith, a powerful Virginian Democrat who chaired the House Rules Committee and who had strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act. The addition of "sex" to title VII is commonly described as a cynical attempt to defeat the bill by inserting objectionable amendments.<10><11><12> Smith knew Republicans, who had included equal rights for women in their party's platform since 1944, would vote for the amendment along with southern Democrats and get it in the final bill.<12> Smith thought that northern Democrats would not vote for the bill due to the inclusion of gender, because the clause was opposed by labor unions which the northern Democrats aligned themselves with.<12> Representative Carl Elliott of Alabama later claimed, "Smith didn't give a damn about women's rights...he was trying to knock off votes either then or down the line because there was always a hard core of men who didn't favor women's rights,"<13> and the Congressional Record records that Smith was greeted by laughter when he introduced the amendment.<14>

Smith nevertheless claimed that he sincerely supported the amendment and made serious arguments in its favor.<14> The claim was not entirely ungrounded, as Smith had long been close to Alice Paul, a women's rights activist who urged him to include sex as a protected category. The amendment had been forcefully promoted by the National Woman's Party and its allies in Congress, who had no desire to scuttle the Civil Rights Act.<10> Thus, as William Rehnquist explained in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, “The prohibition against discrimination based on sex was added to Title VII at the last minute on the floor of the House of Representatives...the bill quickly passed as amended, and we are left with little legislative history to guide us in interpreting the Act’s prohibition against discrimination based on ‘sex.’” <15>