Gay Marriage | New York | News

New York Assembly Approves Marriage Equality in Vote of 80-63

As expected, after several hours of emotional debate, New York's Assembly has approved the 'Marriage Equality Act' by a vote of 80-63.

Ny A similar bill has been submitted to the New York Senate. Senate Republicans conferenced for several hours today, emerging with no decision on whether there would be a vote. Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos said they would convene again tomorrow.

31 of 32 Senators need to pass it have committed to support the bill. All that stands between it now is one vote.

If you have not called your Senator, you should do so NOW, and politely urge them to support the marriage equality bill. The list of Senators who are currently on the fence, along with contact information, can be found HERE.

Roll Call, AFTER THE JUMP...

Tomorrow should be another busy day.

Marriage Equality 13 Jun 11

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. What was the vote last time?

    Posted by: TampaZeke | Jun 15, 2011 9:17:19 PM


  2. How many Republicans voted for it in the Assembly? And how do we get THEM to call the swing GOP votes in the Senate?!

    Posted by: Cyd | Jun 15, 2011 9:19:14 PM


  3. Literally one vote. ONE VOTE. Wow.

    Posted by: Tyler | Jun 15, 2011 9:25:37 PM


  4. TampaZeke : "What was the vote last time"

    I wonder the same thing, and the 3 other times?

    Posted by: TT | Jun 15, 2011 9:28:13 PM


  5. 2011: 80-63 Yes (7 absent)
    2009: 89-52 Yes (9 absent)
    2009: 89-52 Yes (They voted twice in 2009)
    2007: 85-61 Yes (4 absent)

    Seventy-six votes are needed for passage and Republicans gained 51 seats in the 150-person Assembly between 2009 and 2011.

    Posted by: Dave | Jun 15, 2011 9:38:41 PM


  6. It passed in 2007 (85-61), 2009 (89-52), 2009 (88-51), and today (80-63).

    Posted by: Dan | Jun 15, 2011 9:40:27 PM


  7. @Dave - So it must have more Republican support this time around. Do you have a link to the votes?

    Posted by: Dan | Jun 15, 2011 9:41:54 PM


  8. The roll call from today's vote will likely be posted some time in the next 24 hours at http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?sh=vote

    Posted by: Dave | Jun 15, 2011 9:43:09 PM


  9. @dan... no, it mustn't necessaricly; gop gained 10 seats; democrats also lost seats to cuomo administration, which then remained empty and then add the few who didn't show...

    Posted by: daftpunkydavid | Jun 15, 2011 9:53:42 PM


  10. I'm just picturing this whole thing failing because of one vote...it's too bad the Lt. Gov. can't break a tie, although I think the real issue is GOP nervousness which would cause them to not bring it forward for a vote.

    Skelos is going to conduct a "straw poll" of his conference to decide. Does that spell doom or am I assuming the worst?

    Posted by: Bruno | Jun 15, 2011 10:01:15 PM


  11. Ball today said he will vote no. My son called Betty Little's office to ask for a yes vote and was treated rudely, which leads me to think she is a no. Saland is getting significant pressure, but from what I am told, is leaning toward no. Saland needs to be the focus of calls. If you are in his Hudson Valley District, call early and often. I'm not giving up on the others I've not mentioned because I don't have any contacts there. Hoping for the best.

    Posted by: Tim | Jun 15, 2011 10:03:00 PM


  12. After the whole day, there's finally an article that sheds some light on where the Republicans stand, though it's too non-specific to help draw any conclusions:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/06/15/2011-06-15_new_york_assembly_passes_bill_to_legalize_gay_marriage_8063_legislature_now_head.html

    Posted by: Bruno | Jun 15, 2011 10:26:01 PM


  13. Where was Cuomo today? Meeting with the GOP Senators?

    Posted by: Tyler | Jun 15, 2011 10:44:31 PM


  14. I'm confused. If it passed in the NY Assembly, then wouldn't it go to the NY Senate? Why is a similar bill being submitted to the NY Senate?

    Posted by: peterparker | Jun 15, 2011 11:00:27 PM


  15. Unfortunately loss of string attached...

    Posted by: JEFFUWS | Jun 15, 2011 11:05:35 PM


  16. The more I hear about the possible swing Republicans, the more I'm convinced the only one that stands a chance is Mark Grisanti of Buffalo. He's representing a heavily Democratic district and won because his opponent was caught lying and possibly committing illegal acts. In other words– he knows he's on a short leash and needs to act responsibly. Add to that he used to be a Democrat until the election so he could challenge the incumbent.

    If you live in Buffalo, please call his office tomorrow. If you've never made a political phone call or sent an email to a politician, now is the time. Grisanti is the one. Even Lady Gaga wants you to call his office, watch this clip:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn0esOGO6eY

    Posted by: Jeff | Jun 15, 2011 11:16:49 PM


  17. Tim, don't forget Lanza of Staten Island. His mother encouraged him to vote for equality before she passed and he's repeatedly expressed that he has not made a final decision. We all need to be getting Staten Islanders to call his office.

    One of the messages lost in all of this information is that this battle would already be over had LGBT and other progressive voters turned out to vote last November in numbers comparable to Tea Party activists. Sens. Craig Johnson of Long Island and Andre Thompson of Buffalo, both marriage equality supporters, lost their seats in races which were so close that they weren't called until December. Many here (LincolnLounger, etc.) frequently contend that there is no difference between Dems and Republicans and that our community's interests would be well served by sitting out elections and withholding support from Dems. It is because of people like them and those who did in fact stay home last November that Sens. Johnson and Thompson are not around this week to provide the 32nd and 33rd votes for equality. If we lose this week, it didn't have to be.

    Posted by: Patric | Jun 15, 2011 11:17:18 PM


  18. Here's the roll call from the Assembly: http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/

    Posted by: Patric | Jun 15, 2011 11:22:00 PM


  19. from my count, 3 republicans voted yes, which, given last election, is about what was expected i believe.

    Posted by: daftpunkydavid | Jun 15, 2011 11:29:34 PM


  20. Frankly, calls need to pour in to every Republican district, to make it very clear that this needs to come up for a vote and to strengthen the resolve of the two Republicans who have come out in support.

    It may not hurt to call the county and state Republican Party as well. After all, votes are what matter at the end of the day and you know the Senators will want to know their backs are covered if they lose the endorsement of the Conservative party. Contact info can be found at http://www.nygop.org/section/interactive-map

    Posted by: Dave | Jun 16, 2011 12:09:52 AM


  21. I hate to say it but I think this is mostly out of our hands now. I'm seeing a little showdown developing between Republicans and Cuomo over the religious exemptions, and frankly, it's not looking promising. I think there may be no Republicans left that actually WANT to vote for this, but a few may feel politically like they should. Saland seems to have been the quietest of the undecideds, kind of like McDonald was til yesterday, but Ball, Lanza, & Grisanti have all basically said they prefer civil unions. I'm afraid Cuomo might have to cave in to Ball's over-the-top demands to win this...and we've seen today he doesn't seem to have that intention at all. Tomorrow should be interesting to say the least.

    Posted by: Bruno | Jun 16, 2011 12:38:17 AM


  22. If it's a choice between giving in to the demands or not, Cuomo should give in. It's not a sign of weakness and it still accomplishes the eventual goal.

    However, that should only be a last-ditch effort to save the bill.

    Posted by: Tyler | Jun 16, 2011 12:49:06 AM


  23. Cuomo must NOT give in to Ball's demands. It would defeat the entire purpose of the bill. The legislation does provide for religious exemptions and those organizations affiliated with anti-gay religions will be free to discriminate against gay couple by denying them use of their facilities or services.

    Posted by: TruthSeeker_Too | Jun 16, 2011 3:49:45 AM


  24. I sense the momentum stalling for passing it. I think the GOP Senate may find a way to avoid even voting on it, or only two Repubs will end up voting for it, leading it to fail by one vote. It seems like there is something going on to block it. Dont underestimate the power of NOM and the Catholic Church.

    Posted by: javier | Jun 16, 2011 9:17:17 AM


  25. @thruthseeker_too, that is correct HOWEVER we could get LEGALLY married and have a ceremony somewhere else! This would be challenged as discriminatory in the courts but in the mean time, we would be abel to get married in 30 days from passing and send a HUGE message to the rest of the country that the tide is turning.

    Posted by: RONTEX | Jun 16, 2011 9:25:30 AM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Beast: Michele Bachmann Called Police on Lesbian Nun, Believes in Gay 'Cure'« «