Comments

  1. searunner says

    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…

  2. Bruno says

    @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.

  3. searunner says

    @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.

  4. says

    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.

  5. searunner says

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

  6. Bruno says

    @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.

  7. searunner says

    @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.

  8. Bruno says

    @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.

  9. NY2.0 says

    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!

  10. Bruno says

    “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.

  11. searunner says

    @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?

  12. Jollysocks says

    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”

  13. Bruno says

    @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.

  14. Jollysocks says

    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.

  15. searunner says

    @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?

  16. searunner says

    @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.

  17. Bruno says

    @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.

  18. searunner says

    @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.

  19. Jollysocks says

    @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.

  20. searunner says

    @Jollysocks: I think Skelos is probably safe, a non-vote means people like Ball, Girsanti, McDonald, Alesi, and there is another GOP Senator who just squeaked into office are all going to be heavily targeted, some from both sides.

    There are probably a few more, but failure to vote and failure to pass guarantees marriage equality is a key issue in 2012, pumping lots of money into a targeted group of districts.

  21. Robert says

    If I were Cuomo, I’d demand at least one more republican guarantees a vote based on the changes in language. Even if there hadn’t been other issues, rent control, the property tax cap, the GOP would still find an excuse to foot-drag. In essence, they really don’t want it passed, that’s what its all about, plus they’re playing to their bigot religious base.

    If this passes today or tomorrow, I’d like to see a bill introduced in the next session calling for the removal of every religious cult’s tax exemptions for interfering in the political process as well as harrassing and threatening politicians to support and vote for discrimination in what is a purely state civil right issue. Nail them with impunity. Make them pay.

  22. MickleSt says

    Just wondering if the Repubs are considering the POTUS’s LGBT fundraiser tonight, and whether they feel that passing marriage equality will put him in a squirmy situation. If they don’t pass it today, then he’s got more wiggle room, no?

  23. MickleSt says

    @searunner: Your argument makes sense to me, alas. A non-vote means that the base might feel Repubs have done their job, and then brings influx of attention and cash their way in time for next year’s campaigns.

  24. searunner says

    @Micklest: A non-vote is, in my opinion, the worst possible option. I know others disagree. It makes marriage equality a 2012 campaign issue, good luck with that GOP in swing districts and those who narrowly won their seat (Sen. Ball). Also, Cuomo can always call the legislature back into session. Or if he was feeling particularly cocky, he can re-introduce the bill in 2012. You thought there was squirming in 2011 over whether to bring this bill to a vote, 2012 would be even more uncomfortable.

  25. Bruno says

    “Sen Roy McDonld expects #gaymarriage vote, and soon: “It looks like today will be the last day, into the early morning hours.” Others unsure”

    Somehow I’m still not buying it.

  26. Bruno says

    @Searunner: And of course very few people have seen the language, let alone a bill, so far.

    BTW, some people have mentioned that the GOP are conferencing right now, but I see no evidence of that. In fact, I saw that Libous & Grisanti had a meeting with Cuomo a few minutes ago, supposedly not really about marriage equality.

    Also, Greg Ball is basically saying he won’t vote for the bill, but that should come as no shock to anyone by now.

  27. Abel says

    I just have this incredible sinking feeling but I’m still hoping. Will the bigots win again? Will Maggie grin and smirk and say soothing things (“We LOVE you gays…”) and will Tony snicker and grin with undisguised glee?

  28. Jollysocks says

    And now Lanza is singing a different tune in terms of his own vote:

    “GOP Lanza tells me getting the amendments he wanted doesn’t mean he’s an automatic yes vote for same-sex marriage.”

    Dipshit. He better just be hiding his vote, cause if this does come to a vote and he kills the bill by voting no — wow, he’s going to have the biggest target on his forehead for many days to come.

  29. MickleSt says

    It’s all feeling more and more like more B.S. from Senate Repubs, and I remain as skeptical as I’ve been all along. When my man of the past 24 years and I have the marriage license in hand, then I’ll believe it.

  30. searunner says

    @Bruno: I heard about Grisanti’s meeting with Cuomo. Libous said no formal language was shown, but it was discussed even if briefly. The positive is Grisanti was in the room to discuss a piece of legislation that is extremely important to his re-election chances.

    As Lanza says he’s not a definite even with his language, Alesi warns about reprecussions of not voting.

    http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/06/alesi-reprecussions-if-marriage-bill-doesnt-come-to-a-vote/

    GOP is apparently holding conference tonight about marriage equality bill (see link above).

    It’s interesting and unusual to watch the GOP flail around like they are now. Usually it’s the Democrats doing the flailing. I kind of like it.

  31. Bruno says

    @Searunner: Lanza is beginning to piss me off, although I guess I can see why he does this. In case it doesn’t go through, he wants to be a “no” until he has to be a “yes.” Maybe. LOL. Tx for the links.

  32. searunner says

    @Bruno: I’m sure Lanza is pissing off a lot of folks. I wouldn’t be surprised if he voted either way on the bill.

    I do like that Grisanti and Saland have been very quite to this point, especially Saland.