by Kilian Melloy
EDGE Staff Reporter
Tuesday May 12, 2009

With a bill to legalize marriage equality expected to sail through the New York State Assembly, the real question becomes whether the measure can clear the state Senate.

In 2007, well before last year’s election brought a majority of Democrats to the state Senate, the Assembly had passed a marriage equality bill that was never allowed to come up for a vote under the Senate’s then-Republican leadership.

Now, even though the Democrats narrowly dominate the Senate, the outcome is far from certain: for one thing, any successful legislation needs 32 votes to pass the state Senate, and there are exactly 32 Democrats in that lawmaking body, a situation that The New York Times profiled in a May 10 article.

The result has been instances of legislative gridlock, because small groups of lawmakers, or even individuals, can derail important pieces of legislation if they don’t get concessions or provisions they want, the article noted, quoting Senate Speaker Malcolm A. Smith.

Smith said that when it comes to getting laws passed, “It’s not about [the] merit [of the legislation]. It’s just about what gets us there with the votes that we need to get it passed.”

Commenting on the makeup of the state Senate, Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky noted, “When you require 32 people to do anything, and you only have 32 people, I don’t care if you’re the New York State Senate or the catering committee for the junior prom: nothing is going to get done easily.

“The Democrats will adjust and do a good job, but it’s going to take some time,” Brodsky added.

By contrast, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, with a more definite Democratic majority, “has 60 members he can let off the hook, said Smith.

Smith added that the makeup of the Assembly allows Silver to “pontificate, he can change his mind, he can dance, he can sit still.

“Because at the end of the day, he has 60 or 70 members that don’t have to stand up and take a position on anything.”

Bills relating to issues such as transportation are now getting caught up in the Senate; when it comes to marriage equality, which does not enjoy the support of all Democrats, the situation is even more sticky. As noted in an EDGE article from April 14, the long-ruling paradigm in New York politics is that state lawmaking comes down to a de facto triune: the Governor and the heads of the Assembly and the Senate.

Noted the EDGE article, “The old Senate head was implacably opposed to gay marriage. The new one, Malcolm Smith of Queens, is vocal in his support.

“The leader of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, is a practicing Orthodox Jew. But the area he represents, the Lower East Side of Manhattan, is one of the most liberal, and Silver is nothing if not politically astute; he has implied he will do nothing to oppose the measure.

“The problem is in the Senate. Although there is a Democratic majority, at least two if not three Democrats are so opposed to gay marriage that it became the major sticking point in the election of Smith to head the body after last year’s election.”

Added the EDGE item, “Paterson had indicated earlier that the state’s budget crisis prevailed over any social engineering. But Vermont (and Iowa) changed all that.

“Today, the wind appears to be behind the back of marriage advocates,” EDGE noted, though that will depend on how many Republicans favor marriage equality as much as whether all Democrats will support it.

Indeed, not all state Senate Democrats do support marriage rights for gay and lesbian families. Senator Rubén Díaz Sr., is vocally opposed to marriage equality, to the point of partaking in anti-marriage rallies; as for the other side of the aisle, one Republican has voiced support for family equality, according to a May 3 article in New York Magazine which named that GOP senator as James S. Alesi.

New York Magazine estimates that the measure lacks six votes to clear the Senate, though the article also cites GLBT equality group Empire State Pride Agenda as speculating that four Democrats (of seven who are opposed to marriage equality) might be prevailed upon to change their minds.

The group’s executive director, Alan Van Capelle, noted that state lawmakers had had a change of heart in the past; “So we know that when we do the work that needs to be done, which includes giving the facts and telling our stories, people can change their minds,” the article quoted Van Capelle as saying.

As far as Republicans who might come to support the right of gays and lesbian families to enter into legal civil marriage, the New York Magazine article said, there’s speculation that Sen. Thomas P. Morahan and Sen. Kemp Hannon might be persuaded to support equal rights for all New York families.

Moreover, a number of Republican state senators have not given any indication on way or another.

A May 9 article in The New York Times noted that state Sen. Vincent L. Leibell has stated that he would support civil unions, but also acknowledged that “society changes over time,” while Sen. James S. Alesi noted, “My public opinion has not been stated yet, and it probably won’t be for a while.”

The decibels surrounding the issue are rising, but marriage equality supporters have reason for optimism, the New York Times article said: for one thing, Sen. Dean G. Skelos, the Senate minority leader, has given Republican senators leave to vote as they see fit, rather than insisting that they toe a party line.

“Republican legislators will be free to vote their conscience on this issue, without pressure,” the article quoted Log Cabin Republicans adviser Jeff Cook as saying.

Added Cook, “And we know if people vote their hearts on this issue, we will win.”

However, those determined to prevent gay and lesbian families from attaining equal access to civil marriage have hardly given up the battle. Anti-gay group the National Organization for Marriage, which supported Proposition 8, the California voter initiative that stripped marriage rights from gay and lesbian families, is working to block passage of the bill.

The article quoted NOM executive director Brian S. Brown as saying, “right now they don’t have the votes in the Senate to pass same-sex marriage.

“And as long as we’re able to connect with voters and have them connect with their senators, then marriage will remain the union of a man and a woman in New York.”

For some senators, lobbying is beside the point: their minds are made up.

Democrat George Onorato made his stance plain, saying of gay and lesbian families, “They can have all the other privileges, but not marriage.”

For others, however, interaction with constituents and marriage supporters had helped them make more informed decisions; the article quoted Democratic senator John L. Sampson, who said that his opposition was waning.

“I do see it differently,” the article quoted the senator as saying.

“I can’t impose my own religious beliefs in a situation like this.”

Sampson is officially undecided, as is Sen. Ruth Hassell-Thompson, a fellow Democrat who comes from a deeply religious family.

“This is an issue that challenges the fundamental beliefs that people have,” the article quoted Hassell-Thompson as saying.

“And it’s not easy.”

May 7, 2009
New York Times
By ABBY GOODNOUGH

BOSTON – Gov. John Baldacci of Maine on Wednesday signed a same-sex marriage bill passed by the State Legislature, saying he had reversed his position on such marriages after deciding it was a matter of equal protection under the state’s Constitution.

“I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law,” the governor said in a news release from Augusta, Me., where he announced his decision to sign the bill in a news conference.

Later, in a telephone interview, he said, “It’s not the way I was raised and it’s not the way that I am.” He added: “But at the same time I have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution. That’s my job, and you can’t allow discrimination to stand when it’s raised to your level.”

With the enactment of the Maine bill, gay-rights activists have moved remarkably close to their goal of making same-sex marriage legal throughout New England just five years after Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to allow it.

But gay couples may not be able to wed in Maine anytime soon. The law would normally go into effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns, which is usually in late June. But opponents have vowed to pursue a “people’s veto,” or a public referendum allowed in Maine to ask voters if they want to overturn the law.

The opponents would need to collect about 55,000 signatures within 90 days of the Legislature adjourning to get the question on the ballot, and if they did, the law would be suspended until a referendum could be held. That would be in November at the earliest, and more likely, in June.

Mr. Baldacci acknowledged the likelihood of a referendum on the issue, saying his enactment of the law may not be “the final word.”

“Just as the Maine Constitution demands that all people are treated equally under the law, it also guarantees that the ultimate political power in the State belongs to the people,” he said in the news release. “While the good and just people of Maine may determine this issue, my responsibility is to uphold the Constitution and do, as best as possible, what is right. I believe that signing this legislation is the right thing to do.”

Mr. Baldacci announced his decision to sign the bill about an hour after the State Senate gave final passage to the bill, which would codify marriage as a legally recognized union of two people regardless of their sex. Under state law he had 10 days to decide whether to sign the bill, veto it or let it become law without his signature.

But Mr. Baldacci, a Democrat who cannot seek reelection due to term limits, said he had already spent considerable time thinking about the issue.

“I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully,” he said in the release. “I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.”

Supporters of same-sex marriage have won victory after victory this spring, with the legislatures of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine embracing it. Massachusetts let gay couples marry in 2004, and Connecticut began allowing same-sex marriage last fall.

Like Governor Baldacci of Maine, Gov. John Lynch of New Hampshire, also a Democrat, has opposed same-sex marriage but has said he might sign New Hampshire’s bill.

Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, vetoed a same-sex marriage bill in Vermont last month, and the Legislature then enacted it after an override. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, also a Republican, vetoed a similar bill in California in 2005.

Supporters of the measures probably do not have enough support to override a veto in New Hampshire.

With the movement enjoying momentum from the string of recent victories — including the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision last month that same-sex marriage should be legal there — Mr. Baldacci faced, and Mr. Lynch faces, considerable pressure from advocates and from their own party, which increasingly supports same-sex marriage.

Mr. Lynch will have five days to make a decision after the bill reaches his desk. Several political observers have guessed that Mr. Lynch, who might run again, would let New Hampshire’s become law without his signature, as state law permits.

After the New Hampshire Senate’s vote last week, Mr. Lynch restated his belief that the state’s two-year-old civil-union law provided sufficient rights and protections to gay couples. But he did not repeat an earlier statement that marriage should be only between a man and a woman.

In California, where the State Supreme Court may rule this week on whether a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional, gay-rights advocates are optimistic even though many expect the ruling to uphold the ban.

The next state to debate same-sex marriage will probably be New York. Gov. David A. Paterson, a Democrat, introduced a marriage bill last month and the State Assembly, which strongly supports it, will probably take it up next week. The bill’s fate in the Senate is less certain.

In Maine, the Democratically controlled House voted 89 to 57 for the bill on Tuesday; the State Senate, also dominated by Democrats, approved the bill last week in a 21-to-14 vote. .

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland was among the groups lobbying Mr. Baldacci, a Catholic, to veto the bill, as was the Maine Family Policy Council, an affiliate of the Family Research Council in Washington.

The House chamber in Augusta was thick with emotion on Tuesday as many legislators openly wept and revealed personal details. One told her colleagues for the first time that she has a lesbian daughter; another wept as he explained that he, as a white man, would not have been able to marry his wife of 25 years, who is black, if a law had not been changed. Other legislators spoke of sleepless nights debating how to vote.

While the Iowa decision gave supporters of same-sex marriage an important first victory in the nation’s heartland and a few other states are considering legislation this year, New England remains the nucleus of the movement. Gay-rights groups here have been raising money, training volunteers and lobbying voters and lawmakers as part of a campaign called Six by Twelve.

The region’s strong libertarian bent helps explain why the issue has found support. And voters in some New England states cannot initiate constitutional amendments, a strategy for blocking same-sex marriage elsewhere, although Maine does have its “people’s veto.” A Rhode Island bill is unlikely to be acted on soon; proponents believe its chances will improve in 2011, after Gov. Donald L. Carcieri, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, leaves office.

“We are closer than we thought we would be, although not closer than we hoped we would be,” said Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the group leading the New England campaign. Pointing out that May 17 is the fifth anniversary of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Ms. Swislow added, “New England is such a small region that people have been able to see it’s good for everyone.”

Washington Acts on Marriages

The Council of the District of Columbia on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a bill that recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The measure now goes to Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, who has said he supports it. The committees in the House and Senate that oversee the District of Columbia would then have 30 session days to review the law. If Congress does not act within 30 days, the law will automatically take effect.

Katie Zezima contributed reporting from Augusta, Me.

Washington Blade, May 1, 2009

The official White House web site was recently updated and the much-lauded section on civil rights and LGBT rights severely edited.

A White House spokesperson told the Blade today that the site edits do not reflect any policy changes.

“As with most web sites, periodic changes are made to whitehouse.gov, and recently we overhauled the issues section to concisely reflect the president’s broad agenda and we’ll continue to update those pages, but the president’s commitment to LGBT issues hasn¹t changed at all,” the spokesperson said. “So … anyone who’s saying that it’s a change in position is wrong.”

That’s reassuring and I’m all for brevity. But one change to the site has me concerned. The language related to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” represents a departure from the earlier iteration of the site.

The previous version of the language read, “Repeal Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.”

The site now states: “He supports changing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security.”

“Changing” the policy and “repealing” it are not necessarily the same thing. I hope this is just semantics and doesn’t represent a new reluctance to fulfill the promise of a full repeal.

The full text related to LGBT issues now reads: “President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports changing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.”

Just one minute after taking office in January, the White House site was updated and Obama’s LGBT promises were spelled out in greater detail.

On civil unions, the site read: “Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.”

On marriage: “Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples. “

On adoption: “Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.”

There was also language reflecting support for hate crimes legislation and for ENDA.