Gay Marriage | New York | News

NY Majority Leader Dean Skelos Says Senate Conferencing Same-Sex Marriage Bill Today: VIDEO

Ds

Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos emerged from his office today and told reporters that the Senate GOP would be conferencing the marriage equality bill today, but would not give any answers regarding timing of a vote or if that vote would happen, and said that would be decided in conference.

Said Skelos: “We’re going to conference the language of the amendments; we’re going to conference the whole issue. And I expect that that’s going to take a little time.”

Watch (clip is a bit quiet), AFTER THE JUMP...

Skelos office is (518) 455‑3171. Call and ask him to bring the bill to the floor for a vote.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. "A little time" = 5 days, I'm guessing.

    Posted by: Bruno | Jun 23, 2011 12:24:18 PM


  2. Repubs and their stall tactics! Again and again.

    Posted by: tommy | Jun 23, 2011 12:25:19 PM


  3. I would jsut love to be a fly on the wall for that conference, it won't be pretty.

    Now, if the GOP is finally ready to conference that means there is some kind of agreement on amendment language...

    Posted by: searunner | Jun 23, 2011 12:35:31 PM


  4. @searunner: Well, the amendment language may be agreed upon by the 3 negotiators and Cuomo. I could see them finding some issue and sending it back to Cuomo another time. I could see anything happening, really.

    Posted by: Bruno | Jun 23, 2011 12:39:02 PM


  5. @Bruno Cuomo can always call the legislature back into session and force a vote, which according to the WSJ is what at least 1 Republican Senator fears and believes would happen.

    If there is amendment language that is agreed upon, I think that only increases the likelihood of passage. Anything, of course, can happen. But I'd rather have the GOP conferencing about amendment language than Skelos and others saying they don't know what is on the table.

    Posted by: searunner | Jun 23, 2011 12:47:05 PM


  6. @bruno apparently there is some consideration of wrapping the marriage equality bill and the amendment language up with the big ugly:

    http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/06/religious-exemption-could-be-in-big-ugly/

    If this true, wow. Even if it is not, the I would suspect the even the idea circulating around the Capitol would definitely change the dynamics of everthing.

    Posted by: searunner | Jun 23, 2011 12:57:38 PM


  7. Jesus Christ. Enough already! Just pass the damn bill. This is almost worse than waiting for the Stupak folks to come around on health care last year.

    Posted by: Jeff | Jun 23, 2011 12:57:49 PM


  8. @bruno, I should correct that, only the religious exemption amendment would be included with the "Big Ugly".

    Posted by: searunner | Jun 23, 2011 1:01:01 PM


  9. @Searunner: I'm skeptical of that coming from a Dem Assembly member rather than someone with closer ties to the negotiations. I suppose it can't hurt as a rumor though.

    Posted by: Bruno | Jun 23, 2011 1:02:21 PM


  10. We seem to have these people scared to bits. I feel so powerful...

    Posted by: robert | Jun 23, 2011 1:03:44 PM


  11. @Bruno it is coming from the Assembly Majority Leader, so, it is someone in a leadership position. Perhaps it is how the Assembly plans to pass the amendment language and get it to the Senate, but that would then tie the amendment language to the larger bill... It's all very interesting, and perhaps designed to make it impossible for Skelos not to hold a vote on marriage equality.

    Posted by: searunner | Jun 23, 2011 1:07:32 PM


  12. @Searunner: Yeah, I suppose that would be and interesting way to do it. I didn't realize he was the Assembly leader, although he still hasn't had any part in the negotiations, at least not publicly.

    I assume the GOP wants to make sure that they don't pass the marriage bill without some sort of guarantee of the amendments passing in the Assembly. I guess one way to do that would be to pass the religious exemptions as separate law, and perhaps in the omnibus. However, there might be no guarantee that the GOP would provide the 32nd vote to pass the bill in the Senate, even if it came up, though we all think they probably would. Should be interesting in the next day or so.

    Posted by: Bruno | Jun 23, 2011 1:17:02 PM


  13. Ugh...It's Thursday and the legislative session was suppose to end on Monday. The Republicans are being disingenuous and playing games, they've dragged this out long enough. Bring the f&*king bill to a vote!

    Posted by: NY2.0 | Jun 23, 2011 1:18:49 PM


  14. His voicemail box is full.

    Posted by: Johnnie B | Jun 23, 2011 1:25:17 PM


  15. "Speaker Silver emerges from Gov office. Says he hopes to wrap up tonight. Will do amendment on #samesexmarriage if Senate decides to vote."

    I think what we're seeing is quid pro quo pro quo. Assembly won't vote on amendments before being assured GOP will bring it to a vote? And then I assume the GOP won't commit the 32nd vote until the amendments are passed. That's what we should probably be looking to see.

    Posted by: Bruno | Jun 23, 2011 1:28:26 PM


  16. @Bruno I do think the GOP wants to ensure that whatever is being voting on and is about to pass has the right language.

    I think if there is a vote on marriage equality and it includes the negotiated language (one way or the other), there is no way the GOP can't provide at least 1 more vote. If they don't, why should Cuomo and the Democrats negotiate in good faith with them?

    Posted by: searunner | Jun 23, 2011 1:31:35 PM


  17. Silver is now saying that the marriage amendment language will NOT be in the "big ugly":

    "@ShellySilver sez the 'big ugly' will not contain amendments for #samesexmarriage, and will not include SUNY/CUNY tuition hike"

    Posted by: Jollysocks | Jun 23, 2011 1:33:15 PM


  18. @Searunner: I think that the GOP wants assurances that the bill will pass with those amendments before it commits to a vote. It will need some sort of assurances that the Assembly won't reject the amendments, which would undermine everything. How they can feel assured--whether it's just Silver's word or more--is anybody's guess.

    Posted by: Bruno | Jun 23, 2011 1:38:14 PM


  19. @Jollysocks Thank you for the update. Crazy day in Albany.

    Posted by: searunner | Jun 23, 2011 1:39:03 PM


  20. KEY UPDATE --

    "Speaker says religious exemptions deal w organizations, doesn't mention individuals. Also: "re-enforces a little bit" what was in Cuomo bill"

    So the new language DOESN'T include individuals which is a big yippie to me. Now it is ALL up to the GOP Conference on whether to bring it up to a vote.

    Posted by: Jollysocks | Jun 23, 2011 1:44:34 PM


  21. @Bruno It will probably be a quid pro quo. Senate will vote as long as the Assembly passes the language 1st.

    It's maddeningly frustrating as all sides seem to acknowledge the bill will pass once brought to a vote. Our problem is how to bring the bill to a vote, which also happens to be Skelos' problem. How does he bring this to a vote?

    Posted by: searunner | Jun 23, 2011 1:45:15 PM


  22. @Jollysocks That is great news. I didn't expect individuals to be included and even Ball's latest tweets (will the good people in Buffalo please vote his ass out) made no mention of individuals.

    Posted by: searunner | Jun 23, 2011 1:47:55 PM


  23. @Searunner: I assume he'll figure out a way. At this point I think there's only one way NOT to bring this to a vote...claim the exemptions didn't go far enough and blame it on the conference.

    Posted by: Bruno | Jun 23, 2011 1:53:11 PM


  24. @Bruno: I'm in the camp he finds a way to get a vote and just be done with it. I'd prefer he telegraphed that sooner rather than later, but I get why he doesn't.

    Posted by: searunner | Jun 23, 2011 2:02:35 PM


  25. @Bruno that's a distinct possibility and definitely my biggest fear, we will know soon enough once the the GOP Conference ends (it's currently underway).

    However, if that is the route Skelos wants to take, he should have done it a week ago and not let this drag out in the public eye for so long. He has to know that if the bill doesn't even reach the floor, he and the rest of the declared "undecided" Senators will be facing a bloodbath.

    Posted by: Jollysocks | Jun 23, 2011 2:09:20 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Gay Marriage Proposal at a Kylie Minogue Concert: VIDEO« «