Assembly passes GENDA in 2010: Vote tally

On Tuesday, the NYS Assembly passed the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) for the third time by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 100-43.

The State Senate remains the only obstacle to passing GENDA. Early next week, the Pride Agenda will be launching a GENDA Call-In Day to State Senators. Click here to receive an e-mail when it's time to make the calls.

The official Assembly vote tally is below. Click here to find out who your Assemblymember is.

Y = yes, N = no, Abs = absent, D = Democrat, R = Republican, I = Independent

N Abbate, Jr. (D)
Y Alessi (D)
N Alfano (R)
N Amedore (R)
Y Arroyo (D)
Y Aubry (D)
Y Bacalles (R)
N Ball (R)
N Barclay (R)
N Barra (R)
Y Barron (D)
Y Benedetto (D)
N Benjamin (D)
Y Bing (D)
Y Boyland (D)
Y Boyle (R)
Y Bradley (D)
Y Brennan (D)
Y Brodsky (D)
Y Brook-Krasny (D)
N Burling (R)
N Butler (R)
Y Cahill (D)
N Calhoun (R)
Y Camara (D)
Y Canestrari (D)
Abs Carrozza (D)
Y Castro (D)
Y Christensen (D)
Y Clark (D)
Y Colton (D)
N Conte (R)
Y Cook (D)
N Corwin (R)
Y Crespo (D)
N Crouch (R)
N Cusick (D)
Y Cymbrowitz (D)
Y DelMonte (D)
Y DenDekker (D)
Y Destito (D)
Y Dinowitz (D)
Y Duprey (R)
Y Englebright (D)
N Errigo (R)
Y Espaillat (D)
Y Farrell, Jr. (D)
Y Fields (D)
N Finch (R)
N Fitzpatrick (R)
Y Gabryszak (D)
Y Galef (D)
Y Gantt (D)
Y Gianaris (D)
Y Gibson (D)
N Giglio (R)
Abs Glick (D)
Y Gordon, T (I)
Y Gottfried (D)
Y Gunther (D)
N Hawley (R)
N Hayes (R)
Y Heastie (D)
Y Hevesi (D)
N Hikind (D)
Y Hooper (D)
Abs Hoyt (D)
Y Hyer-Spencer (D)
Y Jacobs (D)
Y Jaffee (D)
Y Jeffries (D)
Y John (D)
N Jordan (R)
Y Kavanagh (D)
Y Kellner (D)
N Kolb (R)
Y Koon (D)
Y Lancman (D)
Y Latimer (D)
Y Lavine (D)
Y Lentol (D)
Y Lifton (D)
N Lopez, P (R)
Y Lopez, V (D)
Y Lupardo (D)
Y Magee (D)
Y Magnarelli (D)
Y Maisel (D)
Y Markey (D)
Y Mayersohn (D)
N McDonough (R)
Y McEneny (D)
N McKevitt (R)
Y Meng (D)
Y Miller (R)
Y Millman (D)
N Molinaro (R)
N Montesano (R)
Y Morelle (D)
Y Nolan (D)
N Oaks (R)
Y O'Donnell (D)
N O'Mara (R)
Y Ortiz (D)
Y Parment (D)
Y Paulin (D)
Y Peoples (D)
Abs Peralta (D)
Y Perry (D)
Abs Pheffer (D)
Y Powell (D)
Y Pretlow (D)
N Quinn (R)
N Rabbitt (R)
N Raia (R)
Y Ramos (D)
N Reilich (R)
Y Reilly (D)
Abs Rivera, J (D)
Y Rivera, N (D)
Y Rivera, P (D)
Y Robinson (D)
Y Rosenthal (D)
Y Russell (D)
N Saladino (R)
Y Sayward (R)
Abs Scarborough (D)
Y Schimel (D)
N Schimminger (D)
Y Schroeder (D)
Y Scozzafava (R)
Y Silver (D)
Y Skartados (D)
Y Spano (D)
Y Stirpe (D)
Y Sweeney (D)
N Tedisco (R)
Y Thiele (I)
Y Titone (D)
Y Titus (D)
N Tobacco (R)
Y Towns (D)
N Townsend (R)
Y Weinstein (D)
Y Weisenberg (D)
Y Weprin (D)
Y Wright, K (D)
N Zebrowski (D)

Marriage passes the New York Assembly

Last night, the marriage bill (A.7732/O'Donnell) passed the Assembly 89-52. This is the second time that the Assembly has voted on and passed marriage equality legislation. Today’s vote saw an increase in four supporters over 2007, including three additional Democrat votes and one additional Republican vote, for a total of 84 Democrats and five Republicans voting to support marriage equality for same-sex couples. Five Assemblymembers who voted “no” in 2007 voted “yes” last night.

The vote tally is below. Italics denote Republicans; bold denotes Assemblymembers who voted “no” in 2007 and “yes” this year; "ABS" denotes absent/no vote. To find out who your Assemblymember is, click here.

Abbate, Jr.  NO
Alessi  Y
Alfano  NO
Amedore NO
Arroyo  Y
Aubry   Y
Bacalle NO
Ball    NO
Barclay NO
Barra   NO
Barron  NO
Benedetto Y
Benjamin NO
Bing    Y
Boyland, Jr. Y
Boyle   NO
Bradley Y
Brennan Y
Brodsky Y
Brook-Krasny Y
Burling NO
Butler  NO
Cahill  Y
Calhoun NO
Camara  ABS
Canestrari Y
Carrozza Y
Castro  NO
Christensen NO
Clark   NO
Colton  NO
Conte   NO
Cook    Y
Corwin  NO
Crouch  NO
Cusick  Y
Cymbrowitz NO
DelMonte NO
DenDekker Y
Destito Y
Dinowitz Y
Duprey  Y
Eddington Y
Englebright Y
Errigo  NO
Espaillat Y
Farrell, Jr. Y
Fields  Y
Finch   NO
Fitzpatrick NO
Gabryszak NO
Galef   Y
Gantt   ABS
Gianari Y
Giglio  NO
Glick   Y
Gordon  Y
Gottfried Y
Gunther Y
Hawley  NO
Hayes   NO
Heastie ABS
Hevesi  Y
Hikind  NO
Hooper  NO
Hoyt    Y
Hyer-Spencer Y
Jacobs  Y
Jaffee  Y
Jeffries Y
John    Y
Jordan  NO
Kavanagh Y
Kellner Y
Kolb    NO
Koon    Y
Lancman Y
Latimer Y
Lavine  Y
Lentol  Y
Lifton  Y
Lopez, P NO
Lopez, V Y
Lupardo Y
Magee   NO
Magnarelli Y
Maisel  Y
Markey  ABS
Mayersohn Y
McDonough NO
McEneny Y
McKevitt NO
Meng    ABS
Miller  Y
Millman Y
Molinaro ABS
Morelle Y
Nolan   Y
Oaks    NO
O'Donnell Y
O'Mara  NO
Ortiz   Y
Parment Y
Paulin  Y
Peoples ABS
Peralta Y
Perry   NO
Pheffer Y
Powell  Y
Pretlow Y
Quinn   NO
Rabbitt NO
Raia    NO
Ramos   Y
Reilich NO
Reilly  Y
Rivera, J  Y
Rivera, N  Y
Rivera, P Y
Robinson NO
Rosenthal Y
Russell Y
Saladino NO
Sayward Y
Scarborough Y
Schimel Y
Schimminger NO
Schroeder Y
Scozzafava Y
Seminerio NO
Silver Y
Skartados Y
Spano   Y
Stirpe  Y
Sweeney Y
Tedisco NO
Thiele  Y
Titone  Y
Titus   Y
Tobacco NO
Towns   Y
Townsend NO
Walker  NO
Weinstein Y
Weisenberg Y
Weprin  Y
Wright  Y
Zebrowski Y

Assembly passes GENDA: Vote tally

Yesterday, the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) passed the NYS Assembly 97-38. The bill now heads to the New York Senate. GENDA (A.5710/S.2406) would provides civil rights protections for transgender New Yorkers by banning discrimination in housing, employment, credit, public accommodations, and other areas of everyday life.

The official vote tally is below. Click here to find out who your Assemblymember is.

Y = yes, N = no, Abs = absent D = Democrat, R = Republican

N Abbate, Jr. (D)
Y Alessi (D)
Abs Alfano (R)
N Amedore (R)
Abs Arroyo (D)
Y Aubry (D)

N Bacalles (R)
N Ball (R)
N Barclay (R)
N Barra (R)
Y Barron (D)
Abs Benedetto (D)
N Benjamin (D)
Y Bing (D)
Y Boyland, Jr. (D)
Y Boyle (R)
Y Bradley (D)
Y Brennan (D)
Y Brodsky (D)
Y Brook-Krasny (D)
N Burling (R)
N Butler (R)
Y Cahill (D)
Abs Calhoun (R)
N Camara (D)
Y Canestrari (D)
Abs Carrozza (D)
Y Castro (D)
Y Christensen (D)
Abs Clark (D)
Y Colton (D)
Y Conte (R)
Y Cook (D)
N Corwin (R)
N Crouch (R)
N Cusick (D)
Y Cymbrowitz (D)
Y DelMonte (D)
Y DenDekker (D)
Y Destito (D)
Abs Diaz, Jr. (D)
Abs Dinowitz (D)
Y Duprey (R)
Y Eddington (D)
Y Englebright (D)
N Errigo (R)
Abs Espaillat (D)
Y Farrell, Jr. (D)
Y Fields (D)
N Finch (R)
N Fitzpatrick (R)
Y Gabryszak (D)
Y Galef (D)
Y Gantt (D)
Y Gianaris (D)
N Giglio (R)
Y Glick (D)
Y Gordon, T (I)
Y Gottfried (D)
Abs Greene, A (D)
Y Gunther (D)
N Hawley (R)
N Hayes (R)
Abs Heastie (D)
Y Hevesi (D)
N Hikind (D)
Y Hooper (D)
Y Hoyt (D)
Y Hyer-Spencer (D)
Y Jacobs (D)
Y Jaffee (D)
Y Jeffries (D)
Y John (D)
N Jordan (R)
Y Kavanagh (D)
Y Kellner (D)
N Kolb (R)
Y Koon (D)
Y Lancman (D)
Y Latimer (D)
Y Lavine (D)
Y Lentol (D)
Y Lifton (D)
N Lopez, P (R)
Y Lopez, V (D)
Y Lupardo (D)
Y Magee, W (D)
Y Magnarelli (D)
Y Maisel (D)
Y Markey (D)
Y Mayersohn (D)
N McDonough (R)
Y McEneny (D)
N McKevitt (R)
Y Meng (D)
Y Miller (R)
Y Millman (D)
N Molinaro (R)
Y Morelle (D)
Y Nolan (D)
Y O'Donnell (D)
N O'Mara (R)
N Oaks (R)
Y Ortiz (D)
Y Parment (D)
Y Paulin (D)
Y Peoples (D)
Y Peralta (D)
Y Perry (D)
Y Pheffer (D)
Abs Powell, IV (D)
Y Pretlow (D)
N Quinn (R)
N Rabbitt (R)
N Raia (R)
Y Ramos (D)
N Reilich (R)
Y Reilly (D)
Abs Rivera, J (D)
Y Rivera, N (D)
Y Rivera, P (D)
Y Robinson (D)
Y Rosenthal (D)
Y Russell (D)
N Saladino (R)
Y Sayward (R)
Y Scarborough (D)
Y Schimel (D)
N Schimminger (D)
Abs Schroeder (D)
Y Scozzafava (R)
N Seminerio (D)
Y Silver (D)
Y Skartados (D)
Y Spano (D)
Y Stirpe (D)
Y Sweeney (D)
N Tedisco (R)
Y Thiele (R)
Y Titone (D)
Y Titus (D)
N Tobacco (R)
Y Towns (D)
N Townsend (R)
Abs Walker (R)
Y Weinstein (D)
Y Weisenberg (D)
Y Weprin (D)
Y Wright, K (D)
Y Zebrowski (D)

Assembly passes Dignity for All Students Act

In a bipartisan vote of 131-5, the New York State Assembly voted this week to pass the Dignity for All Students Act (A.3661 / S.1987), which would create safer schools for LGBT youth by prohibiting harassment and bullying based on traits including race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. Dignity for All Students will put important mechanisms in place to keep LGBT students safe.

The Assembly first passed the Dignity for All Students Act in 2001, but this will be the first time that a pro-LGBT Majority in the New York State Senate will have the chance to vote on the bill.

Click here to see the official tally of who voted for/against Dignity in the Assembly (click here if you don't know your Assemblymember).

Note to Brennan Center: One-house bills are not a bad thing

Ross Levi, our Director of Public Policy and Education, had the following to say about the Brennan Center's recent report on the workings of the New York State Legislature:

Not to toot our own horn, but we here at the Pride Agenda know a little something about the workings of Albany. Our organization was founded by a New York City PAC merging with an Albany-based grassroots political organization, and since then we have helped get dozens of laws through the state Legislature.

So we are all too familiar with what a complex, stubborn and even sometimes annoying machine Albany can be. The levers can stick too much, it can move way too slowly and the whole thing is just bigger and more cumbersome than it would be in an ideal world. For this reason, our public policy agenda states that, “We support actions that foster a more open, transparent and efficient state government.”

Consequently, we have great admiration for the many good government groups working here in Albany to achieve that very goal. That includes NYU’s Brennan Center which annually recommends improvements to the functioning of state government.

There are a number of points in the Brennan Center’s latest report, however, with which we disagree. Most notably, we question whether the low ratio of bills introduced to bills passed into law is any indication of the inefficiencies of state government. The Brennan Center contends that because only 1,693, or 9% of the bills introduced in 2008 became law, legislators should be limited in the number of bills that they can introduce each session. The report implies that the practice of passing “one house bills,” i.e. one chamber passing a bill that never receives a vote in the other chamber, is a waste of government’s time.

We beg to differ, based on our past experience. As you can see in the statement we issued yesterday, it has been an important part of past advocacy efforts to have LGBT civil rights legislation passed in one house – which in our history has overwhelmingly been the Democratic controlled Assembly – even when we knew a measure stood little to no chance of seeing any similar action in the other house during that same session.

We think it is wrong for the legislature to have that leadership used against them as a sign of legislative dysfunction. Quite the contrary, it has routinely been an explicit part of our advocacy strategy to get a bill passed in one chamber, build its backing in terms of numbers and bipartisan support and use that passage to increase the momentum and political pressure for the other house to move. It is also an important tool to “smoke-out” legislators’ positions around a measure, either for later votes or for when legislators move onto new elected positions, such as when they move from the Assembly to the Senate.

The strategy was a success with hate crimes legislation and the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act, which each passed the Assembly for years before seeing even a vote in the Senate, and it is part of our work around the Dignity for All Students Act, the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act and marriage equality legislation (though we hope and expect those measures will not need similarly long trails of one-house passage).

The rest of the state knows there is a value to one-house bills, too. When SONDA first passed the Assembly, it made the front page of the New York Times Metro section. This media attention is another value to one-house bills, in that it can appropriately bring attention to an issue that is going unaddressed, and serve as an important moment to begin or expand a civic “conversation.”

It is an appropriate part of the democratic process for one chamber to champion bills it views as priorities, even as those measures languish in the other house. The Brennan Center has a point that more frequent use of conference committees to reconcile similar-but-not-identical bills passed in both houses might be a good improvement. But we simply can’t agree that one chamber’s leadership on a one-house bill amounts to a waste of time and government resources. There are plenty of places to find inefficiencies in the legislative process, but surely this is not one of them.

Ross is based in the Pride Agenda's Albany office and is the longest serving current staff member at the Pride Agenda, starting as Legislative Counsel in 2000.

Joel Miller for the 102nd Assembly District

The Pride Agenda is proud to endorse Republican incumbent Dr. Joel Miller for re-election to the 102nd Assembly District (representing Poughkeepsie and the western part of Dutchess County).

Joel Miller is a strong supporter of LGBT rights, never hesitating to speak about our issues and our community and always emphasizing his belief that all Americans should be equal and none should be the target of legalized discrimination. When the marriage equality bill was debated and passed by the Assembly last year, Miller was the first Republican to stand up and state his support for the bill, and the same was true again this year when the Assembly debated and passed a bill prohibiting discrimination against transgender New Yorkers.

In a letter he sent to supporters earlier this year, Miller said, “I voted for the gay marriage bill for one single reason – it was the right thing to do. Furthermore my vote sends a message to other Republicans that there is no need to be stuck in archaic ways, because we can and we must be a progressive party, one that embraces a changing world and one that grants every gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender person full equality and justice under our laws.”

Miller has long had a reputation among his colleagues for being honest and forthright --even outspoken -- about where he stands on an issue. At a recent Log Cabin event where Republican legislators in support of marriage equality were present (Assemblymembers Sayward, Scozzafava and Duprey) and one in particular who is on the other side of the issues and said so again at the event (Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos), Miller spoke forcefully in support of marriage for our families.

In true Joel Miller style, he also didn’t hesitate to say what he thought about the legal mechanisms some Republicans like to propose as a substitute for providing our families with marriage and the 1,324 state-based rights and obligations that only marriage provides. Gay City News reported Miller as saying, “None of this partner contract baloney that they talk about. You can’t go halfway.”

As a bipartisan organization, we are proud that every major piece of LGBT legislation in Albany has passed with support from both Democrats and Republicans. Going forward, this will continue to be important for all our community’s key pieces of legislation. Nothing gets done in Albany without support from both Democrats and Republicans.

Joel Miller is a Republican who votes for equality and justice for LGBT New Yorkers and doesn’t hesitate to go the extra mile and speak up about why our equality is an important part of the promise America makes to all its citizens. He is the only Republican who voted for marriage equality in the Assembly who has a race this November. He is being challenged by a Democrat, Jonathan Smith, who also filled out our questionnaire and has stated his support for our issues.

The choice in this race, however, is clear. Miller deserves the Pride Agenda’s endorsement and our community’s support because he has earned it. Joel Miller has stood with us over and over again, through his votes and through his words, so we stand with him in his re-election on November 4.

To read profiles of other important races we are highlighting for the NYS Legislature, go to our 2008 Election Center.

Scenes from the Gallery of the NYS Assembly during the GENDA vote

We were in the Gallery yesterday afternoon to watch the debate and vote on the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) and took a few pictures. Several of New York’s leading transgender activists, who have worked hard to pass GENDA, were also there as was Housing Works, who co-facilitates the GENDA Coalition with us.

Melissa Sklarz confers with Bali White.



Rev. Duane Motley (green suit looking at me while I take this picture), who is the Christian right’s voice in Albany, takes a seat among all of us with three of his colleagues. Not surprisingly, Motley’s organization’s is opposed to our entire legislative agenda. We do seem to always meet this way in the Assembly Gallery. We will be working hard to stage several more re-unions in the near future in the Senate Gallery.

GENDA comes up on the boards for the debate.

Listening to some of the more inscrutable things that can sometimes be said during floor debate.

Melissa Sklarz and Moonhawk River Stone look out over the Assembly chamber moments after GENDA passes by a vote of 102-33.

Celebrating the passage of GENDA in the Gallery are: the Pride Agenda’s Jacob Lieberman, Housing Works’ Bali White, Melissa Sklarz from Manhattan, Moonhawk River Stone from the Capital Region and JoAnn Prinzivalli from Westchester County.

Assembly passes GENDA: vote tally

In a bipartisan vote of 108-34, the New York State Assembly just voted to end discrimination against transgender people in housing, employment, credit and other areas of everyday life. The legislation adds "gender expression and identity" to the state's Human Rights Laws. This is a big victory for the thousands of transgender New Yorkers who for years have lived in fear of being fired from their jobs or kicked out of their homes simply for who they are.

The bill has strong support from Governor Paterson, so now it's all up to the New York State Senate.

Below is an official tally of who voted for/against GENDA in the Assembly today (click here if you don't know your Assemblymember).

(italics denote Republicans)

Abbate: No
Alessi: Yes
Alfano: Yes
Amedore: No
Arroyo: Yes
Aubry: Yes
Bacalles: No
Ball: No
Barclay: No
Barra: Yes
Benedetto: Yes
Benjamin: No
Bing: Yes
Boyland: Yes
Boyle: Yes
Bradley: Yes
Brennan: Yes
Brodsky: Yes
Brook-Krasny: Yes
Burling: No
Butler: No
Cahill: Yes
Calhoun: No
Camara: No
Canestrari: Yes
Carrozza: Yes
Christiansen: Yes
Clark: Yes
Cole: No
Colton: Yes
Conte: Yes
Cook: Yes
Crouch: Yes
Cusick: No
Cymbrowitz: Yes
DelMonte: Yes
Destito: Yes
Diaz, L.: Yes
Diaz, R.: Yes
Dinowitz: Yes
Duprey: Yes
Eddington: Yes
Englebright: Yes
Errigo: No
Espaillat: Yes
Farrell: Yes
Fields: Yes
Finch: No
Fitzpatrick: No
Gabryszak: Yes
Galef: Yes
Gantt: No
Gianaris: Yes
Giglio: No
Glick: Yes
Gordon, T: Yes
Gottfried: Yes
Greene: Yes
Gunther: Yes
Hawley: No
Hayes: No
Heastie: Yes
Hevesi: Yes
Hikind: No
Hooper: Yes
Hoyt: Yes
Hyer-Spencer: Yes
Jacobs: Yes
Jaffee: Yes
Jeffries: Yes
John: Yes
Kavanagh: Yes
Kellner: Yes
Kirwan: No
Kolb: Abs
Koon: Yes
Lafayette: Yes
Lancman: Yes
Latimer: Yes
Lavine: Yes
Lentol: Yes
Lifton: Abs
Lopez, P: No
Lopez, V: Abs
Lupardo: Yes
Magee: Yes
Magnarelli: Yes
Maisel: Yes
Markey: Yes
Mayersohn: Yes
McDonald: Yes
McDonough: Yes
McEneny: Yes
McKevitt: Yes
Miller: Yes
Millman: Yes
Molinaro: No
Morelle: Yes
Nolan: Abs
Oaks: No
O'Donnell: Yes
O'Mara: No
Ortiz: Yes
Parment: Yes
Paulin: Yes
Peoples: Yes
Peralta: Yes
Perry: Yes
Pheffer: Yes
Powell: Yes
Pretlow: Yes
Quinn: No
Rabbitt: No
Raia: No
Ramos: Yes
Reilich: No
Reilly: Yes
Rivera, J: Yes
Rivera, N: Yes
Rivera, P: Yes
Robinson: Abs
Rosenthal: Yes
Saladino: No
Sayward: Yes
Scarborough: Abs
Schimel: Yes
Schimminger: No
Schroeder: Yes
Scozzafava: Yes
Seminerio: Yes
Silver: Yes
Spano: Yes
Stirpe: Yes
Sweeney: Yes
Tedisco: No
Thiele: Yes
Titone: Yes
Titus: Yes
Tobacco: No
Towns: Yes
Townsend: No
Walker: Yes
Weinstein: Yes
Weisenberg: Yes
Weprin: Yes
Wright: Yes
Young: Yes
Zebrowski: Yes

Family Court access bill is back in the news

We’re glad to see the NYT editorialize today about the long overdue need to fix New York’s behind-the-times Family Court system. In its editorial, the paper said:

"The Legislature should also fix a serious gap in the law: the inability of people in serious relationships with no children in common to obtain orders of protection in Family Court. Most states allow such orders, which are critical for public safety.

But the Republican-controlled State Senate has blocked them for years largely out of reluctance to treat same-sex couples as 'family.'"

We talked to you about this issue in April and want to emphasize again for the record where New York stands in relationship to other states on how our Family Court system treats same-sex domestic partners.

We’re among the last three of four states in the country where same-sex domestic partners who don’t share children are given no standing in Family Court. And we should also say just about the same holds true here in New York for opposite-sex domestic partners who don’t share children. Yes that’s right – New York is that regressive when it comes to this.

There is simply no good reason why we should continue to lag behind states like Mississippi and Alabama when it comes to who is deemed to be “family” in Family Court.

This year, for a change, there is actually a Senate Republican sponsor of a bill aimed at putting an end to this. But will the State Senate do what the Assembly has already done and pass the bill?

We’ll find out in just a few weeks.

GENDA passes Assembly Codes Committee

The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) has just passed the Assembly Codes Committee by a bipartisan vote of 16-2. The bill had already passed in the Government Operations Committee on April 30 and now goes to the Assembly Rules Committee, which is chaired by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

Thirteen Democrats and three Republicans voted for moving GENDA, while only two Republicans voted against. Democrat Robin Schimminger was the only Assemblymember absent for the vote.

GENDA has 75 co-sponsors in the Assembly and 101 Assemblymembers are on record in support of the bill, according to our Legislative Scorecard.

Below is the Codes Committee vote count.

Voting for:

Joe Lentol (D) (Chair)
Philip Boyle (R)
James Brennan (D)
Vivian Cook (D)
Steven Cymbrowitz (D)
Tom Kirwan (R)
Charles Lavine (D)
Daniel O'Donnell (D)
Nick Perry (D)
J. Gary Pretlow (D)
Dede Scozzafava (R)
Michele Titus (D)
Helene Weinstein (D)
Mark Weprin (D)
Keith L.T. Wright (D)
Kenneth Zebrowski (D)

Voting against:

George Amedore (R)
David R. Townsend (R)

Dropping the Ball

As primary season gets underway for elected officials in both of New York’s legislative chambers we start to see a clear picture of how various issues will be used to promote the record of a certain candidate or sully the image of an opponent.

LGBT issues, unfortunately, are often considered fair game in this game of mudslinging. What many of these candidates don’t realize, however, is that New Yorkers (of all political stripes) are not won over by championing a position that is discriminatory towards their lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender friends, family neighbors or coworkers. It certainly didn’t work when Craig Johnson was running in his special election for a Long Island senate seat last year.

Now Hudson Valley Assemblyman Greg Ball apparently feels that it’s necessary to beef up his conservative creds in a recent mailer by proudly showcasing the fact that he has defended “traditional marriage.” As a young member of the Assembly and self-proclaimed “reformer,” we find it curious that Ball would claim that he’s taken on “the good old boys” by doing things like voting against the marriage bill that passed in the Assembly last June. If you look at the list of Assemblymembers who voted for that bill, you’ll find that a vast majority of the “good old boys” voted the same way that Greg Ball voted. More progressive “reformers” in the Assembly voted for marriage.

The most insulting part of this mailer is the headline that proclaims that Ball is “fighting for the best interest of you and your family.” Apparently this excludes anyone who is LGBT or has an LGBT member of their family. By voting to deny the 1324 rights and responsibilities that come with a marriage license to the many committed same-sex couples in his district, Ball doesn’t seem to be fighting for a definition of family values that is in-step with his constituents—or one that is very reform-minded.

E&J Day Gets GENDA Moving

The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), which would outlaw discrimination against transgender people in New York, has just passed the Assembly’s Government Operations Committee. Currently it is legal in New York to be fired from your job, kicked out of your house or be denied service in a restaurant just for being transgender. GENDA would put an end to this kind of discrimination.

The Committee vote comes the day after 1300-plus LGBT and straight New Yorkers were in Albany lobbying for key LGBT bills, including GENDA. The bill currently has 74 co-sponsors and, according to the Pride Agenda scorecard, 94 Assemblymembers would vote for the bill if brought to the floor. That’s way more than the 76 votes required to pass. Additionally, in a poll that the Pride Agenda commissioned in Feb. of this year, 78 percent of New York voters support passing this bill.

The vote was 9-2, with one absence (Marcus Molinaro), and went right down party line (Dems voting for, Republicans voting against):

Voting for GENDA:

RoAnn Destito (chair)
Michael Benedetto
Patricia Eddington
Sandy Galef
Rory Lancman
George Latimer
Margaret Markey
Crystal Peoples
Bob Rielly

Voting against GENDA:

Jack Quinn
Joe Saladino


Next up for GENDA: the Codes Committee

Governor Spitzer talks about marriage equality in New York

In a call-in show called “Vox Pop” on WAMC Northeast Public Radio in Albany, Governor Spitzer talks about marriage equality and provides his views on the current political environment around the issue in New York. You can hear his discussion with “Vox Pop” host Alan Chartock beginning at 2’45” on the audio clip. For those of you downstate who are not familiar with “Vox Pop”, it is not too unlike “Inside City Hall” on NY1 in that it’s considered “must listening” for political junkies.

This is the Governor’s first extended remarks about the issue since the Assembly passed marriage equality legislation last year by an 85-61 vote. Spitzer reaffirms his support for the issue, talks about Republican support the bill received in the Assembly and how passing it in the State Senate will be an individual issue, a “Senator by Senator determination.” He concedes that having Democrats controlling the State Senate “probably would matter” in getting a vote, but emphasized that support from Senators will be more individual than partisan.

We thank the Governor for his continued strong support for marriage equality. We agree with him when he says support from legislators is individual in nature. Our community and our many allies and friends across the state made the case for marriage equality on a legislator-by-legislator basis last year leading up to the vote in the Assembly and that made a difference when the voting finally took place. It will also make a difference with State Senators when they take their vote on marriage equality for our families.

The Governor sharing his views on the issue came in response to a caller named Phil who identified himself as man in his upper 70’s who has been in a relationship for over twenty years. He said about his partner and himself: “We Pay taxes, we vote, we pay our dues to our community.” His question for the Governor: “Do you have any sense that within our lifetimes the state will recognize our relationship so that we can benefit from the privileges and responsibilities that other married couples enjoy in New York State?”

Full transcript of the Assembly debate on marriage

Yesterday we received the full transcript of the June 19 marriage debate in the Assembly that took place for about three hours before the chamber historically voted to pass the bill by a vote of 85-61. Re-reading the debate is fascinating; some of the words spoken by our representatives are quite inspiring and can serve to remind us that we have some very strong and passionate allies in this movement. Below are some of the highlights from the debate.

Most of the speeches made were in support of the bill, but there are a few that were against. Reading these views can also help as we try to move more people to understand this issue, even though the arguments are sometimes nonsensical and frustrating.

I did not include a portion of Assemblymember Danny O'Donnell's speech because it's best read in its entirety. It is a passionate, well-reasoned and at times funny argument on why marriage equality is necessary. You can find it starting on page 65 of the PDF.

Here are some memorable clips:

Assemblymember Mark Schroeder (voted for):

Let's just review, simply said, summarize the historical quotes that I made. What was the reason for civil law marriages in New York State? It was to protect people. What is the reason for marriage equality, the bill that we are talking about tonight? It is to protect people...We, in the Assembly, were not elected within the confines of the Holy City of Jerusalem, the Nation of Islam or the Vatican City of Rome, we were elected to the New York State Legislature and a primary duty is to protect the people from injustice.

Assemblymember Brian Kolb (voted against):

But, I am also trying to articulate to you and the sponsors of this particular bill that I do feel threatened. I do feel harmed in terms of what you are trying to do with this particular bill because it is a direct challenge to me and how I was brought up and the belief that I have in God and what I believe that the Lord has given me in my heart.

Assemblymember Deborah Glick (voted for):

This is about access to civic institutions that provide protection. And, if we want to be clear about the sanctity of marriage, I can get married. I can go out and find somebody tomorrow, and I guess wait the applicable few days, and marry someone. It would have to be a man. That would be a sham. It would be an insult. It would not be upholding the sanctity of the tradition of people loving, caring and committed to one another through life, through the trials and tribulations that will befall many of us. I love my partner, and I want to be certain that if anything happens to me that she is fully protected. And we have done everything that we could legally, going to lawyers and tying up property to the extent that we have any, but there are things that we don't have access to because we are not able to marry. And, I am not young
enough to wait for this Body and the other Chamber to vote on 1,300 separate rights and responsibilities.

Assemblymember Barbara Lifton (voted for):

I will be casting my vote for this bill in memory of my wonderful brother, Steven Smith, who happened to be a gay man. When he died in 1994, his partner of 13 years, Greg, who happily thrives to this day, had no legal right to Steven's remains or to many of the benefits of Steven's adult working life, over 17 years. And that is but a small piece of the many ways in which gay couples are treated as second-class citizens.

Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi (voted for):

So what I am asking you, my colleagues, to do is light that board up green because we all took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the State of New York. I would ask you to light that board up green because the fairness and equality of our country is paramount. Don't tell me that I live in a country where Andy Hevesi, after being in a relationship for two years and has picked a person that he wants to marry can do it, but Danny O'Donnell who has been in a relationship for 26 years and has picked a person he wants to marry can't do it. Ladies and gentlemen, that is fundamentally unfair, and we are better than that. As a country, as New Yorkers, we are better than that. And, let me finally say, please light that board up green, vote in the affirmative for my kids. If one of my children happens to be gay, I want to make sure that they have the same rights and responsibilities that every other citizen of the country has.

Assemblymember David Townsend (voted against):

I believe that the individuals who are caught in this conundrum of a lifestyle that maybe to some seems foreign, to many of us we understand and appreciate it and can understand their love for each other, have a way to address it. It may be civil unions. There may be another issue that I am not aware of, but that can work.

Assemblymember Joe Lentol (voted for):

And Mr. Gottfried and, certainly, Ms. Glick can tell you that I have come a long way over the years that I have been here with respect to gay rights, with respect to how I feel about certain issues, and it's not because I flip-flop or change any position at all, it's because I have listened and I have learned.

Assemblymember Richard Gottfried (voted for):

In the months and weeks and hours leading up to today's debate, many people have asked, "Why are we doing this now? This bill isn't going anywhere in the Senate. Why are we doing it now?" Or, at least not tonight. Certainly, why are we doing this now? And the answer is very simple: That I believe, as I said at the outset, I believe this is the most important human rights issue facing this Legislature, and it is always the right time to take a stand for human rights.

Assemblymember Dede Scozzafava (voted for):

The easiest thing for me to do tonight, the politically easiest thing for me to do tonight, would be to vote no and go back to those individuals and tell them, "Hey, listen, but I'll support civil union for you." But a good friend of mine, on Friday, sat down and he explained to me why that did not provide him equal protection under the law. And what might be the easiest thing for me to do tonight isn't the right thing. These men and women in my community and throughout the State, my friends, deserve equal protection under the law, regardless of my religious belief, and that's why I am going to be voting in favor of this legislation this evening.

Assemblymember Teresa Sayward (voted for):

My God loves my son and as sure as I'm standing here tonight, this issue is certainly not one for me, or should be for any of us here, anything other than a civil rights issue, and I ask tonight that you give great consideration to the fact that I don't believe either Mr. O'Donnell or Ms. Glick had a choice in this life that they would be homosexual; for if they had, I'm sure they would have chosen the easier path. So, let's search our hearts tonight and do the right thing and vote for the civil rights and the human rights of all of the people that we represent and give them the right to marry the people that they love, just like I had the right 43 years ago to marry my husband.

Assemblymember John McEneny (voted for):

We are voting tonight, and I have never been more proud to vote, for true equality in our great American democracy, and it is good to see New York as a leader and not a follower.

Assemblymember Sandra Galef (voted against):

So today, you know, I really have a heavy heart. This is a very difficult issue. I actually wish that the issue of civil unions was before us; it is not. I think a lot of people have talked about steps. And sometimes we do need steps to make things better. It doesn't happen all at once, even though I know many people in this room, probably the majority of the people in this room, want it to happen very quickly. But I think, you know, given the fact that my district has a very strong belief opposing this legislation, that, as I said, I made a commitment to follow their advice on this particular issue that I polled last fall.

Assemblymember Jose Rivera (voted for):

Madam Speaker, Martin Luther King once said, "We are not free until everyone is free." Very interesting. What's taken place in this Chamber is that regardless of what happens to the other side or whatever happens, if nothing happens, at least we are standing up tonight in what, in my view, is what is right to do.

Assemblymember Jonathan Bing (voted for):

And I stand here to support this legislation today because I want to do something to make sure that whomever my daughter eventually decides to love, that she can have that relationship respected to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of whether it's a man or a woman that she decides to love. She deserves that respect. The law deserves to respect her in that way and it's my hope and expectation that 18 years from now when she can vote for the first time, that she will say to me, "What was the big deal about, why was there so much controversy about this legislation?" Because, at that point, we will have a law on the books that allows for same-sex marriage and that will be the norm in this country, not the exception.

Assemblymember William Scarborough (voted for):

I have been today listening very deeply, and I am strongly moved by a number of things that have been said, and I am strongly moved by the issue of equal protection under the law, and I
believe that those things have to be dealt with. I believe in the next year we are going to have to have a deeper discussion of exactly what we are doing. We are going to have to have a better explanation for the people of this State as to what we are doing and why, and I think that that is a task for all of us. I will cast my vote in the affirmative today, but I think we have much more to do.


Assemblymember Micah Kellner (voted for):

I'm the most junior member of this Body, and I have been here only about two weeks and I can say this is --no matter how long my tenure is here, this is probably the most important
vote I'll ever make.

Assemblymember Matt Titone (voted for):

The irony that the debate over the so-called sanctity of marriage is not lost on me when we consider that the debate lasted almost as long as Britney Spears' first marriage. I have my partner here on the phone, and he just asked me to marry him and my answer, Madam Speaker, is yes.


Read the full transcript here.

Jose Peralta's response to "Courtin' Trouble"

Remember that ignorant little piece that Errol Louis penned in the Daily News a couple of weeks ago about gay marriage possibly leading to polygamy and incest?

Assemblyman Jose Peralta (Queens) wasn't very happy about what Louis had to say and sent a response to the Daily News. It never ran, but we have a copy of it:

"Now that the New York State Assembly has passed legislation providing same-sex couples with access to marriage, opponents are trying to scare New Yorkers about what this means by using the worn-out slippery slope argument that this will lead to incest and polygamy. We heard it on the floor of the Assembly during debate on the bill and we heard it in this newspaper just a few days ago.

As a person of color, I have to say that it is disturbing to hear the same ugly and untrue arguments being used today by defenders of the status quo that were used forty years ago when people of different races wanted to marry.

When a mixed race couple went before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1958 to be allowed to marry in the famous Loving v. Virginia case, the voices of doom were saying the same thing. They said this would weaken the family, be bad for kids and be the end of civilization as we know it. They talked about bestiality being next. Never mind that there was no evidence to back any of this up, they still put it out there to scare people.

Our vote on marriage was about nothing more than a vote to allow two adults who are in love and of the same sex to be able to marry. No legislature is compelled to say what was done for one particular set of circumstances must be done for another. We looked at the facts regarding same-sex relationships and deliberated over what would be the best public policy decision to reach. That debate might be very different for a different set of circumstances.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry is about far more than live-and-let-live. There ARE same-sex couples living in New York and they ARE raising children – tens of thousands of them. Extending marriage and the literally 1,324 laws and statutes related to it that are designed to protect those families is not about making these families feel good. It is smart public policy to take an institution that has been used to protect opposite-sex couples and their children and apply it to same-sex couples and their families. The institution I’m talking about is marriage. It provides a healthy and necessary framework for two people to take care of each other and should be extended in this case to same-sex couples.

Slippery slope arguments are never based on fact. They are about hysteria. With this change in marriage, people ask, what other changes will we be forced to face? For better or worse, marriage has always been about change. From polygamy in biblical times -- to consolidation of power and prevention of war in medieval times -- to the inferior status of married women in more modern times -- to the ban of interracial marriage just decades ago -- society has always asked what model of marriage best fits the needs of that time.

The question is now being asked about two people of the same-sex, and I for one have provided my answer on the basis of equality, justice, family protection and good public policy. The restriction on same-sex couples marrying in New York should end. That does not put New York sliding down a slippery slope to anything else. It only answers the question for my gay and lesbian constituents and the gay community across the state."

Jose Peralta
New York State Assembly
39th District

Touché.

Assembly passes marriage: vote tally

Vote tally:

85 Yes
61 No
4 Did Not Vote

Click here if you don't know your Assemblymember.

(italics denote Republicans)

Abbate: N
Alessi: Y
Alfano: N
Arroyo: Y
Aubertine: N
Aubry: Y
Bacalles: N
Ball: N
Barclay: N
Barra: N
Benedetto: Y
Benjamin: DNV
Bing: Y
Boyland: Y
Boyle: N
Bradley: Y
Brennan: Y
Brodsky: Y
Brook-Krasny: DNV
Burling: N
Butler: N
Cahill: Y
Calhoun: N
Camara: DNV
Canestrari: Y
Carrozza: Y
Christiansen: N
Clark: N
Cole: N
Colton: N
Conte: N
Cook: Y
Crouch: N
Cusick: Y
Cymbrowitz: N
DelMonte: N
Destito: Y
Diaz, L. Y
Diaz, R. N
Dinowitz: Y
Duprey: N
Eddington: Y
Englebright: Y
Errigo: N
Espaillat: Y
Farrell: Y
Fields: Y
Finch: N
Fitzpatrick: N
Gabryszak: N
Galef: N
Gantt: N
Gianaris: Y
Giglio: N
Glick: Y
Gordon, D: N
Gordon, T: N
Gottfried: Y
Greene: N
Gunther: Y
Hawley: N
Hayes: N
Heastie: N
Hevesi: Y
Hikind: N
Hooper: DNV
Hoyt: Y
Hyer-Spencer: Y
Jacobs: Y
Jaffee: Y
Jeffries: Y
John: Y
Kavanagh: Y
Kellner: Y
Kirwan: N
Kolb: N
Koon: Y
Lafayette: Y
Lancman: Y
Latimer: Y
Lavine: Y
Lentol: Y
Lifton: Y
Lopez, P: N
Lopez, V: Y
Lupardo: Y
Magee: N
Magnarelli: Y
Maisel: Y
Markey: N
Mayersohn: Y
McDonald: N
McDonough: N
McEneny: Y
McKevitt: N
Miller: Y
Millman: Y
Molinaro: N
Morelle: Y
Nolan: Y
Oaks: N
O'Donnell: Y
O'Mara: N
Ortiz: Y
Parment: Y
Paulin: Y
Peoples: Y
Peralta: Y
Perry: N
Pheffer: Y
Powell: Y
Pretlow: Y
Quinn: N
Rabbitt: N
Raia: N
Ramos: Y
Reilich: N
Reilly: N
Rivera, J: Y
Rivera, N: Y
Rivera, P: Y
Robinson: N
Rosenthal: Y
Saladino: N
Sayward: Y
Scarborough: Y
Schimel: Y
Schimminger: N
Schroeder: Y
Scozzafava: Y
Seminerio: N
Silver: Y
Spano: Y
Stirpe: Y
Sweeney: Y
Tedisco: N
Thiele: N
Titone: Y
Titus: Y
Tobacco: N
Tonko: Y
Towns: Y
Townsend: N
Walker: N
Weinstein: Y
Weisenberg: Y
Weprin: Y
Wright: Y
Young: Y
Zebrowski: Y

Assembly Passes Marriage Equality Bill

The New York State Assembly just voted to pass the marriage bill by a vote of 85 to 61. The vote comes a bit over a month after Gov. Spitzer introduced the bill into the Legislature and a bit under a year since the NYS Court of Appeals ruled that it’s the Legislature’s job to decide on the issue of same-sex marriage. We’ll post the vote tally shortly.

Although marriage for same-sex couples is not yet law in New York, this vote isn’t something to be taken lightly. Since the Court of Appeals decision last July, the New York State LGBT community and our allies have been relentlessly engaged in a dialogue with elected officials that quite powerfully conveyed how important this issue is to us—and that we are not going to let up anytime soon. The Assembly heard this and understood that the majority of New Yorkers believe in marriage equality. Hopefully the Senate is listening a little more intently than Joe Bruno would have us otherwise believing.

The Assembly vote was bipartisan.

New York is only the second state where at least one chamber has passed a bill that would legalize full marriage equality for same-sex couples. California is the other, and that state’s Assembly just passed a marriage equality bill for the second time. The California State Senate is also expected to pass the bill, but Governor Schwarzenegger has promised to veto it.

Now the only thing that stands between gay New Yorkers and their ability to marry is the State Senate, and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno has mentioned more than once that the marriage bill will not be moving under his watch. His majority, however, has been steadily shrinking—most notably (and most recently) with Craig Johnson’s victory this past February as an openly pro-marriage equality candidate in a traditionally Republican district.

Also, Governor Spitzer, who introduced and heavily supports same-sex marriage, has only seen a rise in approval ratings since he introduced the marriage program bill into the NYS legislature on April 27.

The times they are a-changin’

Floor debate on Marriage expected this afternoon

Assemblymember Danny O'Donnel, the marriage bill's prime sponsor, told the Politicker that Speaker Silver will open debate on the marriage bill in the Assembly--likely followed by a vote--this afternoon.

We don't know yet exactly when it will begin, but you can watch Assembly proceedings live here.

We'll continue to keep you posted as we know more.

Marriage Bill Passes Judiciary Committee

The NYS Assembly Judiciary Committee advanced the marriage bill by a party line vote of 16-5.

Democrats voting for:

Helene Weinstein (Chair)
Jonathan Bing
Adam Bradley
Jeffrey Dinowitz
Michael Gianaris
Janele Hyer-Spencer
Hakeem Jeffries
Susan John
Rory Lancman
Charles Lavine
Daniel O'Donnell
Peter Rivera
Matthew Titone
Michele Titus
Mark Weprin
Kenneth Zebrowski


Republicans voting against:

Tom Alfano
William Barclay
Tom McKevitt
Thomas O'Mara
Jack Quinn

The committee met and voted in a packed room of journalists, supporters and opponents of the bill, as well as other Assemblymembers interested in the outcome.

Next stop is the Sheldon Silver's Rules Committee.

Breaking News: Marriage Bill Moving in the Assembly

From Liz Benjamin:

The Assembly Judiciary Committee will take up the same-sex marriage bill today in a move that could ultimately decide the measure's fate in Albany this year.

The bill was added to the committee calendar late yesterday. A committee meeting has so far not been scheduled, which means it will likely be called off the Assembly floor sometime later today. The Assembly is on tap to go into session at 2 p.m.

If the legislation gets out of the Judiciary Committee, to will go to the Rules Committee - the last stop before a bill gets onto the floor. That committee is single-handedly controlled by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

She goes on to say:

Letting the gay marriage bill come to a vote would be a gamble for Silver, but not as much as the same move would be in 2008 - an election year. On the plus side, it would be a nod to both Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who proposed the bill, and the Empire State Pride Agenda, which has been very supportive of both the governor and Democratic lawmakers.

We'll keep you posted...