Latest update and analysis on the gay marriage bill in New York State.

[TheWraith]

Currently, the bill is still on hold, with only 31 of the 32 yes votes required for passage. 29 Democrats and two Republicans in favor, 1 Democrat opposed, 30 Republicans either opposing or undeclared. Due to the rules of the New York State legislature, it is NOT possible for the Lieutenant Governor to break a deadlock.

As you've probably seen, Greg Ball (R-Putnam) has tweeted asking whether he should vote yes or no. The reality is that this is almost certainly grandstanding to look like he's listening to the public: Ball is a right-wing Republican who has already said he's voting no, without additional concessions in the bill which would give organizations the discretion to effectively refuse to recognize gay marriage.

The most likely additional yes vote is Mark Grisanti (R-Niagara Falls). While he caucuses with the Republicans, he was once a Democrat who ran as a Republican challenge the notoriously corrupt Antoine Thompson. Grisanti's stated position during the campaign was a no, but he is officially at this hour "undecided." He's given no indication what would be likely to make him decide.

Currently, the Republican majority leader Dean Skelos (R-Long Island) hasn't yet been willing to bring the bill to the floor for an up or down vote. It's widely suspected that this is a delaying tactic to try and kill the bill without risking a vote where it might pass. Officially, the legislative session ends Monday, however Governor Cuomo has stated he intends to use his powers to keep the legislature in session until they address a further three bills he wants passed, one of which is the marriage bill.

Any Republican who votes in favor of the bill is highly likely to lose the support of the Conservative Party in New York's fusion voting system, or possible face a primary challenger.

[johnnypneumatic]

1. Rubén Díaz, Sr. is the lone Democrat opposed

He is a homophobic extremist and black evangelical minister. He will never vote for marriage equality, so another republican must if the bill is to pass.

[Unvanguard]

2. Cuomo will compromise on religious accommodations.

He's already indicated so. That will probably garner two or three more Republican votes, possibly including Ball. It is extremely unlikely that any compromise would entail a broad right for "organizations" to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages; what will probably happen is that the phrasing of the religious exemptions in the legislation will be broadened a little to respond to some of the complaints which have been brought, particularly, I'd guess, the threat of the denial of public funds and tax-exempt status.

I very much doubt that Skelos wants to kill the bill outright. If he did, he would have done so last week. Taking the "religious liberty" angle makes him look good without alienating all the rich Republican donors who have been pushing for marriage equality.

[TheWraith]

3. I'm not so optimistic about the Republicans.

The religious exemption talk is already pretty nonsensical--there is no basis for the bill for the claims that they're making of things which could happen to religious organizations. A lot of the NY political circle (myself included) suspects that the angle is to push that idea either to the point of gutting the bill, or simply as an excuse to vote no. Even if the very sufficient exemptions already there are widened, they can still lather, rinse, and repeat, claiming they're not broad enough.

I suspect that if the bill comes up for a vote, it'll pass by a small margin, between 32-30 and 34-28, even if it got broader religious exemptions. Despite New York being a very blue state, the Republicans here are highly ossified and tied down primarily to a rural monocultural upstate base.

[Unvanguard]

4. Both upstate and Long Island have majorities for marriage equality, though.

Not to mention the views of Republican donors. Undoubtedly the vast majority of the Republicans will vote no, but I don't think the leadership wants the party to be tarred as the obstructors of same-sex marriage; their majority depends on moderate, socially-liberal districts. I think they do want to grant their members who vote yes some political cover, and this push for religious exemptions, even if it results in merely symbolic differences, seems to me aimed at that. It's probably one of the most powerful lines against same-sex marriage they have, which is why it gets trotted out again and again however weak its actual foundations are.

I mean, this could all be wishful thinking, and thanks for reminding me of that: a healthy dose of cynicism will hopefully lessen the disappointment if this fails. But between the apparent mildness of the Republican position and the confidence of Governor Cuomo, I think this will pass.

[HockeyMom]

5. Long Island can be very strange

While registered Republlicans are the majority (changing to Indy recently), come election time they do a complete turnaround. LI voted for both Kerry and Obama. With the exception of Peter King, all the congressional reps are Dems. I can mostly certainly see it being "socially" fairly liberal. The majority of the people are either from NYC or their families come from there. As the saying goes, you can take the boy out of NYC, but you can't take NYC out of the boy.

I am from LI and both my daughters still live there. I wrote to my former rep where I used to live and my kids grew up. Both my daughters have called their reps. All of these LI Republican reps are "still on the fence", if you can believe that. Are they really doing what their PARTY tells them to do, not necessarily what the people want? I will tell you this much. When it comes to a kid's soccer game or church, they will go to the soccer game instead. Clergy have been complaining about this for YEARS on LI.

Damn, just ONE VOTE.

[TheWraith]

6. I could be wrong, but usually I expect the worst out of Republicans.

Last time around, this was voted on in 2009 when the Dems had a narrow majority, 32-30. But at least some Dems weren't going to vote for it, so they needed Republicans. The Senate Dems had private personal assurances from Republicans that they were going to vote for the bill... then when it came up, the Republicans lockstepped against it. The vote ended up 24 in favor, 38 against. In the words of a friend of mine who worked for the Senate at the time, "We got punked."

Given the demographic realities it's only a matter of time until it passes, whether it's this week or 2013 after another new State Senate gets sworn in, but that's never stopped the Reps from blocking progress before. Like I said, I could be wrong, and it would be nice to be. I'll just not party until the vote actually passes.

Meanwhile, Grisanti still represents the best odds for getting a confirmed 32nd yes vote, in my opinion. If anyone wants to lobby, I'd say he's the one to go for. Stonewall Democrats of WNY would have all the details on how to do that.

http://www.sdwny.org/

[Unvanguard]

7. Expecting the worst of Republicans is generally a pretty reliable heuristic.

I can't quarrel with you there.

That said, wasn't the problem in 2009 in part attributable to the unwillingness of Democrats early in the roll to vote yes? My understanding was that some theoretical Republican supporters didn't want to vote yes unless the legislation would actually succeed, which looked much more doubtful then than it does now, with only one more vote needed.

[HockeyMom]

8. Lanza of Staten Island

Yes, I know SI is very Republican and conservative, despite being a borough of NYC. Bloomberg went up to Albany to lobby for this. How much influence did he have? As they say, all politics is local. Could he grease a certain palm maybe?

Forget Diaz of the Bronx. He is pitiful, even more so since he has a lesbian daughter. However, I would rather see this fail by one vote, than to have all the yeses turn around and then vote NO.

[TheWraith]

10. Not that I know of. All the Dem "no" votes were more or less expected.

Mostly religious problems (Diaz, Monserrate, etc) or representing socially conservative districts that they thought would make trouble (Huntley, Kruger).

As I understood it from my friend who was inside the Senate, who had previously assured me of passage, there was no particular explanation for the debacle other than that the Republicans screwed us with our pants on.

[Vanje]

9. Thanks. Informative.