Yet Another Federal Judge Rules DOMA Unconstitutional

The constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will come before the Supreme Court before long. There are too many lower courts finding that its provisions are unconstitutional to contend with. The latest ruling is from the Second Circuit, where District Court Judge Barbara Jones found that the DOMA provision to define marriage intrudes on the states' right of regulating domestic relations. In other words, DOMA violates the 10th Amendment.

She said, "That incursion skirts important principles of federalism and therefore cannot be legitimate, in this court's view."

The judge said the law fails because it tries to re-examine states' decisions concerning same-sex marriage. She said such a sweeping review interferes with a system of government that places matters at the core of the domestic relations law exclusively within the province of the states.

The ruling came in a case brought by Edith Windsor, a woman whose partner died in 2009, two years after they married in Canada. Because of the federal law, Windsor didn't qualify for the unlimited marital deduction on her late spouse's estate and was required to pay $363,053 in federal estate tax. Windsor sued the government in November 2010.

As part of her ruling, Jones ordered the government to reimburse Windsor the money she had paid in estate tax.

The disparate treatment goes to equal protection under the law. Judge Jones' ruling came just days after the 1st Circuit found that DOMA was unconstitutional in denying federal benefits to same-sex couples. Two judges in the 9th Circuit have issued district court rulings along the same lines.

Gay Marriage Has No Effect On The Institution of Marriage

War on marriage my ass.

Are people really that fearful that gay marriages will destroy society and life as we know it?

I know, it's a rhetorical question. It's not just fear, but centuries of religious dogma pushing back even though this country is predicated upon equal protection and equal rights.

The issue of gay marriage isn't only about the institution of marriage marriage. It's about a whole series of related issues - health care and insurance benefits, tax treatment (singles versus married filing jointly), acting as health care proxy, access to health records of the spouse, inheritances, etc.

But those who are yammering loudest about the President's declaration of support for gay marriage don't realize how hypocritical they sound when they're coming off multiple failed marriages.

If you're already married - how exactly does gay marriage interfere with that? It doesn't.

If you're planning on getting married, some other couple's gay marriage isn't going to affect your marriage plans either (unless you're both trying to get married at the same place on the same day - in which case, you better put that deposit down on the catering hall now).

Marriage is a bond between two people. That hasn't changed. It isn't affecting your rights to get married if you're a heterosexual. You'll still have those rights (along with the right to get divorced - as nearly half of all marriages do these days) plus all the benefits. The only difference is that gays and lesbians would be able to gain access to the same benefits.

President Obama Comes Out In Favor of Gay Marriage

President Obama has announced that he now supports gay marriage. That's a huge turnaround from his prior stance on the issue, and he does so at a time when the civil rights of gays and lesbians are under assault from social conservatives who think that they should be imposing their religious views on others.

I think he saw the reaction garnered from what VP Joe Biden and Sec. Arne Duncan said in support of gay marriage.

It was the right thing to do because it goes towards equal rights and equal protections under the law.

However, this has political ramifications going into November's presidential elections. While it would reinforce his support, it can also serve to energize the GOP base to support Mitt Romney to thwart potential changes in federal law and policy that could help the GOP in rallying the so-cons against him in battleground states.

Maryland Governor Set To Sign Same-Sex Marriage Bill Into Law

While New Jersey gays and lesbians are waiting for Gov. Chris Christie to change his mind about approving a same-sex marriage bill (he issued a conditional veto and has said he'd put the matter up for a referendum), Maryland isn't waiting. They're joining with New York and several other states in enacting same-sex marriage legislation. Governor Martin O'Malley is set to sign the legislation into law this evening - though it would take effect January 2013. Opponents are hoping to gather sufficient signatures to overturn the law:

Though both the House and the Senate chambers are dominated by Democrats, same-sex marriage was not an easy sell for the Democratic governor. In the end, two House Republicans bucked their party and voted for it -- ensuring passage. The Senate wrestled with the issue last year, and passed it with less drama this time.

But even with the governor's signature, same-sex couples won't get Maryland marriage certificates until the law goes into effect in January 2013 -- at the earliest.

Fired-up opponents have pledged to collect 100,000 signatures opposing the bill by June 30 -- about twice what they would need to trigger a state-wide referendum on the topic. On Wednesday several powerful groups joined forces to accomplish that goal.

UPDATE:
For what it's worth, support for gay marriage in New Jersey is increasing, which makes any potential referendum in the state more likely to approve gay marriage.

New Jersey Senate Passes Gay Marriage Legislation; Hurdles Remain

New Jersey's State Senate has passed its version of a gay marriage legislation package that largely mirrors the language used in passing the New York version that was enacted into law last year.

The main difference between New York and New Jersey's situation is that Gov. Andrew Cuomo was a prime mover in getting the gay marriage legislation passed in New York and was willing to provide political cover to Senate Republicans.

In New Jersey, the situation is quite different. Gov. Chris Christie is on the record as saying he'd veto gay marriage legislation but would have no problem putting the matter up for referendum on the November ballot. Legislative Democrats are hoping to force the issue by making him take a stand.

The Senate's passing the bill by a 24-16 margin was significant, but falls short of the 27 votes that would make passage veto-proof. It's also far better than similar legislation received just two years ago:

But advocates hailed the Senate vote as a huge advance, noting that they won 10 more votes than they did two years ago. And both supporters and opponents said they were surprised by the margin: the bill needed 21 votes to succeed and passed 24 to 16.

“The margin brought the notion of an override out of fantasyland,” said Steven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Equality, a gay rights group. “Before today, I would have said the chances of an override were one in a million. Now I’d say it’s about one in two.”

Overriding the anticipated veto would require the approval of two-thirds of both houses, which in the Senate translates to 27 votes. But Democrats, who control the Legislature and have made the bill their top priority this year, argue that they have nearly two years — until the session ends on Jan. 14, 2014 — to muster just three more votes than they won on Monday.

Most significantly, supporters won the support of the Senate president, Stephen M. Sweeney, who abstained from voting two years ago. He has since called that the biggest mistake of his political life, and is the bill’s chief proponent. As the tally was flashed on a board above the Senate chamber, Senator Sweeney, a Democrat from Gloucester County, thrust a thumbs-up in the air.

“These are human beings with feelings that love their partners and they want to be married,” he said. “So be it.”

Politics is driving the legislation at this point - and both sides know it. Everyone is looking to leverage the issue going into November.

Sweeney abstained two years ago when Gov. Corzine was in office and was amenable to passing the bill. Now, Sweeney has shifted his tune and was not only for the legislation, but has become one of its prime sponsors. It also contains key religious protections that would provide cover for other Republicans who are in swing districts around the state:

Sen. Paul Sarlo of Wood-Ridge was another Democrat who sat out that 2010 vote. He too voted yes Monday, saying that his views and those of his constituents have changed since then.

“We’ve evolved on this issue,” Sarlo said on the floor Monday after the vote. “It’s a civil rights vote.”

A practicing Catholic, Sarlo said he’s now confident that “all the religious protections are still in place.”

“That was very important to me,” he said.

Two Republicans – Sens. Jennifer Beck, R-Monmouth, and Diane Allen, R-Burlington – also added their votes to the “yes” column on Monday.

The text of the bill is here.

The Assembly is largely expected to pass the bill, which means that it will be left up to Gov. Christie to sign or block the passage. I think that Christie really doesn't have an issue with accepting gay marriage but it would seriously hurt his chances for higher office down the line with the Tea Party. So a referendum would punt the issue. Democrats aren't going to let him off so easily. It's playing politics with gay marriage, when it is a civil rights issue.

Gov. Christie Gets Foot-In-Mouth Disease Over Gay Marriage Comments

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has foot in mouth disorder in trying to 'clarify' remarks:

In a Statehouse press conference today, he expanded on the statement: “The political climate in the South didn’t give them the option to have a referendum back then,” he said, adding later: “They wished they would have had the option, but the political climate did not permit it, meaning they would not win.”

Christie signaled out Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer), one of two openly gay state lawmakers, as "numbnuts" for comparing him to infamous segregationalists.

“Govs. Lester Maddox and George Wallace would have found allies in Chris Christie over efforts by the Justice Department to end segregation in the South,” Gusciora said Thursday in a statement.

Christie also likened Democrats’ reaction to his original statement to what he called politically motivated overreactions to his comment last year that the press should “take a bat out” on Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen). “It just shows how politically desperate the Democrats are,” he said.

This afternoon civil rights leader U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) is scheduled – along with U.S. Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D-Essex) – for a press conference to discuss the original comments.

Holt in a phone interview today called Christie’s comment a “big blunder.”

His tact in dealing with controversies and politics isn't to apologize but to double down. The fact is that an apology for his insensitive comments would have been more than enough to make the issue go away. But like most things Christie does these days, one eye is on politics and his stature within the GOP as much as it is about getting the job done.

Instead, this carries on and actually detracts from what ever policy agenda he's working on at the time (and curiously enough, he's actually nominated a gay judge to the state supreme court even as he's looking to avoid having to vote on a proposed gay marriage bill in the state). The comments opposing gay marriage are all about the politics and currying favor with the socons - and the end run to a referendum would allow the state to legalize gay marriage without him taking an affirmative action to do so.

To me, that's a shrewd political move, but one that puts the socons in fits since he is not nearly as conservative as they want (but then again, who is these days in no true conservative fashion). It would seem as though Christie has no problem with the gay marriage legislation, except that it would hurt his chances at running for president going forward. That's rather telling about both the state of the Republican party and Christie's politics.

Gov. Christie Outmaneuvers Democrats on Gay Marriage Proposals

Just after Democrats introduced bills legalizing gay marriage in the New Jersey legislature that are a mirror image of the language used in New York, Governor Chris Christie signaled his intention to veto any such legislation and instead said that he would put the matter up for a referendum.

Christie pulled the rug out from under Democrats who were hoping to put the onus on the governor. Instead, Christie is figuring that all kinds of money thrown around by PACs and lobbyist groups will sway public opinion into voting against the gay marriage proposal.

It also means that Christie can avoid having to take a stand that would alienate him with more moderate voters in the state. He can claim that if a gay marriage referendum fails in the state that it was the will of the people, but if he vetoes a bill put before him, he would have to take flak for that. If the bill passes, he could then take credit for getting gay marriage done in the state, even if he opposes it personally. It becomes a win-win for the governor. It also avoids the sticky wicket that would place Christie in with GOP conservatives nationally since the referendum would circumvent the need for the governor to take additional action.

In the end though, it's about fairness and gay marriage will likely pass, joining New York in the region as states that have legalized gay marriage.

UPDATE:
Newark Mayor Cory Booker chastises Christie's position, saying that all citizens in the state should be treated equally under the law. Booker didn't quite go as far as he could in the criticism though. He could have argued that if the issue of civil rights were left up to the states and a referendum as Christie suggested, then much of the South would have continued the Jim Crow laws and segregation instead of being forced by the federal government to eliminate those laws and begin integration.

Newt's Odd Understanding of the US Constitution

One doesn't need to look any further than Newt Gingrich's exception to his rule to see the absurdity of his claim that he'd simply ignore US Supreme Court decisions with which he didn't agree, and that he'd consider abolishing some courts or impeaching other judges with whom he didn't agree.

That's not a separation of powers argument; it's a tremendous overreach and one that's ripe for tremendous abuse.

As a historian, Gingrich said he knows President Thomas Jefferson abolished some judgeships, and President Abraham Lincoln made clear he did not accept the Dred Scott decision denying that former slaves could be citizens.

Relying on those precedents, Gingrich said that if he were in the White House, he would not feel compelled to always follow the Supreme Court's decisions on constitutional questions. As an example, he cited the court's 5-4 decision in 2008 that prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had a right to challenge their detention before a judge.

"That was clearly an overreach by the court," Gingrich said Saturday. The president as commander in chief has the power to control prisoners during wartime, making the court's decision "null and void," he said.

But the former House speaker demurred when asked whether President Obama could ignore a high court ruling next year if it declared unconstitutional the new healthcare law and its mandate that all Americans have health insurance by 2014. Gingrich said presidents can ignore court rulings only in "extraordinary" situations.

So, using Gingirch's standards, if President Obama considered the ruling to be an extraordinary situation, the President could simply ignore the Court's ruling so as to continue the health care reform package even if the Court found it unconstitutional? The howls that would come from the GOP and the conservative base that Gingrich is courting in the 2012 election season would never be louder than if the President simply ignored a court ruling the health care law was unconstitutional because the President simply thought that the health care law was an extraordinary situation. He'd probably be the first to claim that President Obama should be impeached for ignoring the Court.

Moreover, this is yet another blow to the Court's power of judicial review, which puts the Court in the position of deciding what is constitutional and what isn't.

Now, judicial review doesn't mean that the Courts are infallible or that they always make the correct decisions. After all, the Court found that slavery was acceptable before the Civil War and that it approved of actions that were later found to be unconstitutional (see Brown v. Board of Education, for example).

Meanwhile, Gingrich thinks that the Constitution doesn't provide for a right of same-sex marriage. A Court would be justified by the plain language of the Constitution to allow for same-sex marriage because the 14th Amendment requires equal protection under the law using the same kind of rationale as used in Brown and its progeny.

In other words, not only is Gingrich a poor historian, but an even worse scholar when it comes to constitutional matters. But he's shrewd enough as a politician to know that the GOP base he's courting would like to see policies it doesn't like eliminated one way or another, even if it means ignoring longstanding powers of the Courts or a vast expansion of presidential power (but only when held by the "right" people.)

Gay Marriage Opponents In New York File Suit Claiming State Violated Law In Debating Measure

New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedom, which filed suit in state court, claims that the State Senate violated the Open Meetings Law while debating same-sex marriage, is going to find a real tough case ahead of it. They've seriously misread the state law on point, a law that was enacted specifically because Fred Dicker of the New York Post argued for access more than 25 years ago.

Freeman explained that the Open Meetings Law had, from its original passage, an exemption for “deliberations of political committees, conferences and caucuses.” But this was unclear: courts ruled that it should be interpreted to apply narrowly to matters of party business, Freeman said. In Albany, a young New York Post reporter named Fred Dicker wrote a letter to Assembly Speaker Stanley Fink, a Democrat, requesting access to the Democratic party conferences that occurred on a near-daily basis when the legislature was in session.

“I even signed an affidavit,” Dicker told me by phone. “After we told them we were going to sue them, they wrote an exemption.”

Indeed, as Freeman noted, the law was amended to add a second section, giving explicit, blanket authority for legislative conferences in Albany and around the state “to discuss anything including a matter of public business, notwithstanding the member of staff or guests.”

The suit doesn't seek to overturn the outcome - that gays have the right to marry in the state, but claim that the State Legislature didn't follow state law in limiting debate and other procedural acts.

The problem is that the suit seriously misreads state law and is baseless.

New York's First Gay Marriages Take Place

Thirty days after Governor Cuomo signed the Marriage Equality Act into law, the first gay marriages under the law were conducted beginning at midnight.

Hundreds of gay and lesbian couples across New York State began marrying on Sunday — the first taking their vows just after midnight — in the culmination of a long battle in the Legislature and a new milestone for gay rights advocates seeking to legalize same-sex marriage across the nation.

Against a cascade of rainbow-colored falls, and with cicadas humming in the background, Kitty Lambert and Cheryle Rudd married at the first possible moment in Niagara Falls. After a bell tolled 12 times to ring in the new day, Ms. Lambert, 54, and Ms. Rudd, 53, held hands and kissed in front of more than 100 friends and family members.

In New York City, 823 couples signed up in advance to get marriage licenses on Sunday, and many of them were expected to marry in city clerk’s offices across the five boroughs. Officials from more than a dozen cities and towns from Buffalo to Brookhaven said they would open their offices to issue marriage licenses on Sunday, and more than 100 judges across the state have volunteered to officiate at the couples’ weddings on the spot.

Suit Filed Against New Jersey Over Civil Unions Law

New Jersey's Governor Chris Christie has said that he would not back a gay marriage law and that New Jersey's civil unions law is sufficient. That's not how gay couples see things; they're suing the state claiming that the civil unions law is unconstitutional.

Social conservatives say gay marriage is not needed because the state’s civil union law affords protections, and argue that if New Jersey citizens approve of same-sex marriage, then it should be passed through the legislature, as happened in New York, rather than be imposed by the judiciary.

The lawsuit came less than a week after New York legalized gay marriage.

“We feel like there’s real momentum for marriage equality right now especially in the Tri-State area,” Gorenberg said. “At this point New Jersey in standing alone in Tri-State field and not in a good way at all. It’s the only state in the Tri-State region that is not allowing for marriage equality for same sex couples and we think that must end.”

In an interview over the weekend, Gov. Chris Christie again repeated his opposition to same-sex marriage.

“I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. That’s my view, and that’ll be the view of our state because I wouldn’t sign a bill like the one that was in New York,” Christie said.

They're going to face an uphill battle as the New Jersey Supreme Court refused to take up an earlier case and lawmakers in Trenton have been unable to pass their own version of a gay marriage act.

In time, I think New Jersey will pass a gay marriage bill, but this wont be the way to do it. Besides, those in New Jersey will simply cross the Hudson River to get married in New York.

And like in New York, it wont be the end of the world when gays are allowed to marry. Life will go on. Gay couples will be afforded protections and benefits seen by married couples that married couples (and families in general enjoy and take for granted) including the right to visit their spouses in hospitals, be privy to medical decisions, and a whole host of financial benefits. Many of those are provided under the New Jersey civil unions law, but these plaintiffs are claiming otherwise.

How the New York Marriage Equality Act Got Done

It was backroom deals and rules changes in the State Senate that were brokered by Gov. Andrew Cuomo with legislative leaders and proponents that helped ensure passage of the Marriage Equality Act granting gays the right to marry.

The rules changes helped make sure that the vote passage would occur in time for the 11PM newscasts. It could have backfired in a major way though - as some Democrats who had backed the bill were not able to explain their votes due to time constraints.

Essentially the Senate rules were changed in a backroom agreement before session started and then changed again during the vote to make sure it would be concluded to make the 11 p.m. newscasts.

Sen. Kevin Parker, a long time proponent of same-sex marriage was informed by Senate staff that he would not be able to explain his vote. He was livid. He cursed out the governor and eventually stormed to the podium where Duffy was presiding–a number of other Democratic senators followed him–seemingly to calm him down.

Earlier when Sen. Ruben Diaz tried to lay the marriage bill aside he was ignored. Normal senate procedure allows for any senator to lay a bill aside for debate. It gives legislators a chance to debate the bill then when they vote, they again have the chance to explain their vote. But the rules weren’t the same.

Parker told the Gazette that around 7 or 8 p.m. the Senate Democratic conference met and discussed a deal. “We were informed of he procedure,” said Parker. “Everyone knew Rev. Diaz was going to lay the bill aside but we agreed not to debate the bill after he laid it aside. We would call the role and all be able to explain our votes. We would be given two minutes each.” The Gazette and a number of other sources reported the proposed limited debate even earlier in the week. I was told to expect it by multiple senators earlier yesterday morning.

But that deal is not what happened. Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s aide Steve Cohen was on the floor trying to hurry everything along. Parker says that Cohen was trying to, “shut down debate. The cover story was that Dean [Skelos] was upset at Ruben Diaz’s remarks about Republicans and was going to pull the bill if we started speaking. Everyone knows we don’t control Diaz.”

Parker says he was upset most of all because as a minority legislator he has little power. Explaining his vote on issues is at times his only resort. Parker says his district is full of populations who do not support gay marriage and although he was a long time supporter he felt it was important– just as it was for other Senators who were allowed to speak –to explain the thinking behind his vote. Parker was not the only angry Democrat. A number of other legislators were visibly distraught when they were informed they would not be able to speak.

Here's why Cuomo gets credit for the gay marriage bill; he knew how to take advantage of the lay of the land and worked out a deal with Republican strategists and fundraisers to help Republican State Senators who would be amenable to a deal on the gay marriage bill. From the ">New York Times:

But the donors in the room — the billionaire Paul Singer, whose son is gay, joined by the hedge fund managers Cliff Asness and Daniel Loeb — had the influence and the money to insulate nervous senators from conservative backlash if they supported the marriage measure. And they were inclined to see the issue as one of personal freedom, consistent with their more libertarian views.

Within days, the wealthy Republicans sent back word: They were on board. Each of them cut six-figure checks to the lobbying campaign that eventually totaled more than $1 million.

Steve Cohen, the No. 2 in Mr. Cuomo’s office and a participant in the meeting, began to see a path to victory, telling a colleague, “This might actually happen.”

The story of how same-sex marriage became legal in New York is about shifting public sentiment and individual lawmakers moved by emotional appeals from gay couples who wish to be wed.

But, behind the scenes, it was really about a Republican Party reckoning with a profoundly changing power dynamic, where Wall Street donors and gay-rights advocates demonstrated more might and muscle than a Roman Catholic hierarchy and an ineffective opposition.

And it was about a Democratic governor, himself a Catholic, who used the force of his personality and relentlessly strategic mind to persuade conflicted lawmakers to take a historic leap.

“I can help you,” Mr. Cuomo assured them in dozens of telephone calls and meetings, at times pledging to deploy his record-high popularity across the state to protect them in their districts. “I am more of an asset than the vote will be a liability.”

Over the last several weeks, dozens of lawmakers, strategists and advocates described the closed-door meetings and tactical decisions that led to approval of same-sex marriage in New York, about two years after it was rejected by the Legislature. This account is based on those interviews, most of which were granted on the condition of anonymity to describe conversations that were intended to be confidential.

It's little wonder then that Cuomo was hailed as a conquering hero during this weekend's Gay Pride Parade in New York City; that popularity will translate into votes in November and those who had opposed the gay marriage bill are finding themselves on the wrong side of history in the state.

Despite some claims that they will attempt to get a ballot measure to overturn the Marriage Equality Act by adding a constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between a man and woman, such actions are futile. New York will not turn its back on gay marriage and other states will follow in New York's footsteps.

If they don't, as New Jersey's Gov. Chris Christie has indicated (but New Jersey previously adopted a civil union arrangement several years ago), New York will likely see the lion's share of gay marriages as people from the tristate region will flock to New York to get married - and take advantage of the benefits that the new law confers on spouses.

New York Prepares For Operation of Gay Marriage

Governor Andrew Cuomo signing the Marriage Equality Act into law was only the first step towards bringing gay marriage to fruition in New York. Now, the judiciary and bureaucracy throughout the state has to revise forms, set up procedures, and adjust for what is expected to be a mad dash for the altar for many long time committed gay couples who have been waiting years for the opportunity to get married.

Gays will be able to get legally married beginning July 24, 2011. In anticipation of that date, the judiciary is making additional judges available to preside over ceremonies.

Roughly 45,000 gay couples live in New York State, according to census estimates. No exact projection is available for how many will marry here, but officials are readying for thousands, especially in the first week.

“We are training our staff to be prepared for a very large number of people on the first day,” said Michael McSweeney, the New York City clerk, who oversees the marriage bureau. “We are going to be part of history.”

The city has struck an agreement to increase the number of state judges available to perform same-sex marriages. Their workload could swell; John Feinblatt, a top adviser to the mayor, said judges could be bombarded by requests to circumvent the 24-hour waiting period.

Over the next 30 days, state officials must also rewrite the marriage license application form and distribute it to the hundreds of city and town clerks. In Oneonta, a college town of about 14,000 people in central New York, the city clerk, James R. Koury, was expecting a surge in applications, especially on the first day.

“I think we’re probably going to have people coming that day, and I’m looking forward to it,” Mr. Koury said.

The marriage bill was approved in the State Senate late Friday night by a vote of 33 to 29. Four Republicans joined all but one Democrat in supporting the measure after a lengthy and often-heated campaign.

The state’s political establishment is watching closely to see what kind of backlash those four Republicans will face. Already, the National Organization for Marriage, an advocacy group, is pledging to raise $2 million in a bid to defeat them.

New York is now the sixth and largest state to permit same-sex marriage, joining Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, along with the District of Columbia.

After the passage of the legislation, the governor declared that New York had resumed its role as a “beacon for social justice.” Mr. Cuomo, the prime mover of the bill, is expected to march in the city’s gay pride parade on Sunday, which will likely be an emotional and overflowing gathering. His past appearance at the parade was attacked by his Republican opponent, Carl P. Paladino, during the campaign for governor last year. Mr. Paladino criticized Mr. Cuomo for taking his teenage daughter to march alongside him.

The governor is certain to be a major attraction this year in the procession, which sweeps down Fifth Avenue and across Greenwich Village. Attendance is typically 1.5 million; this year, organizers expect an additional 500,000 to 1 million people.

Those expected to take advantage of legalized gay marriage in New York include high profile Hollywood stars like Neil Patrick Harris.

Wedding vendors are hoping for a windfall as couples prepare for the big day.

Most importantly, the gay marriage bill will affect benefits rights, hospital visitation rights, and rights of survivorship in estates and financial transactions.

New York State Senate Passing Marriage Equality Act: UPDATE: Passed 33-29

The political maneuverings are over and the State Senate finally appears to be on the cusp of passing the Marriage Equality Act. It appears that the measure has sufficient votes to pass after Republican Stephen Saland said he would vote to approve the measure. (Watch it as it happens).

Watch live streaming video from nysenate at livestream.com

If the vote goes as expected, it would appear that the vote will be 36-26 in favor of the bill that would legalize gay marriage and provide protections from liability for religious groups that object to gay marriage. 32 votes are necessary for passage.

The Senate took up the measure just before 10 p.m., and the Senate galleries were packed with gay couples in support of the bill and religious opponents of it.

Senator Stephen Saland, a Poughkeepsie Republican, became the critical 32nd vote, telling his colleagues in an emotional address that he believed the issue came down to a question of equality.

“I know my vote is a vote of conscience,” he told a hushed chamber. “I am at peace with my vote. It was a struggle. It was an extraordinary deliberation.”

The measure was to be the final act of this year’s legislative session, and lawmakers earlier Friday barrelled through a variety of votes on university tuition, rent stabilization, and property taxes.

“After many hours of deliberation and discussion over the past several weeks among the members, it has been decided that same-sex marriage legislation will be brought to the full Senate for an up or down vote,” the majority leader, Senator Dean G. Skelos of Long Island, said in a statement. “As I have said many times, this is a very difficult issue and it will be a vote of conscience for every member of the Senate.”

Mr. Skelos, whose caucus had been criticized over the last week for not scheduling a Senate vote on the same-sex marriage measure, said in an interview, “The days of just bottling up things, and using these as excuses not to have votes — as far as I’m concerned as leader, it’s over with.”

The marriage measure, which was proposed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and approved by the state Assembly, has been publicly endorsed by 31 of the 62 senators — leaving the measure one vote shy of the votes needed for passage in the Senate. The announced supporters include 29 of the 30 Senate Democrats and 2 of the 32 Senate Republicans. Supporters and opponents alike said that anything could happen when the Senate takes its vote.

So, while there are some Republican faithful who are threatening to vote Republicans who approve this measure out of office, Republican leadership sees that as the lesser of evils as denying this measure would likely cost them control over the State Senate.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo has already expressed his intention to sign this bill into law.

UPDATE:
The bill passes 33-29, which means that the bill will now go on to Gov. Cuomo for his signature. It will make New York the sixth and largest state to enact gay marriage in the US.

Marriage Equality Act Will Pass In New York; IF It's Ever Brought To a Floor Vote

This is where things stand with the Marriage Equality Act (gay marriage) proposal in New York. Everyone recognizes that if the bill is brought to a floor vote in the State Senate, it would pass - and Gov. Andrew Cuomo would sign it into law, making New York the sixth (and by far the most important) state to do so.

The problem is that it's still mired in procedural actions and haggling over various terms, and it's stuck with other proposals including a property tax cap and mandate relief that the Legislature has yet to address. The Senate Republicans are caught between a rock and hard place:

As soon as today, the New York Senate’s majority party could decide whether to duck out of Albany without voting on same-sex marriage or risk allowing a vote.

If there’s a vote, all it would take is one more Republican to vote yes, and same-sex marriage will become legal — something sure to anger the GOP’s conservative wing and expose Republican senators to primary election challenges next year.

But walking away from the issue without a vote could prove the riskier political strategy as the nation waits to see whether New York becomes the sixth and largest state to sanction same-sex marriage.

Thursday, the Senate adjourned for the night at 11 p.m. without even talking about same-sex marriage. Senators will resume work today, but it remains unclear whether they will vote on the issue. Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos has not agreed to allow a vote.

The Senate's Republican majority is scheduled to meet behind closed doors at 10 a.m. today then go into open session.

But a backlog of other more ordinary yet important bills for New Yorkers must be dealt with first.

Once those bills are passed, the Senate Republicans could start what would likely be a lengthy debate over the gay marriage bill in a closed-door caucus. They could then send the bill to the floor, or kill it.

No vote would unleash a continual stream of questions and backlash from gay rights advocates, Democrats, and national and local media that could linger through campaigns in 2012, a presidential election year.

Avoiding the vote would fly in the face of a popular governor who has made gay marriage a core agenda item. The Republican senators could count on the same issue waiting for them in Albany next January, when the Legislature re-convenes.

“Whether it’s this year or next year, at some point it’ll go on the floor,” said Sen. John DeFrancisco, R-Syracuse, who opposes same-sex marriage but is open to allowing a vote.

Senators, especially those opposing same-sex marriage, get the conundrum. That explains why they are working to amend legislation they may ultimately vote against.

“I think the best case scenario for us is to have an up or down vote and move on to our core issues, jobs and taxes,” said Sen. Greg Ball, a Republican from Putnam County who has spent days working to insert more religious protections into a bill already passed last week by the Assembly.

If the Republicans, who control the Senate punt this year, it will come back at them with a vengeance next year during a Presidential election season, and their thin majority in the Senate could be at risk. That's why getting this off their plate makes sense as it would let them deal with other pressing issues, including mandate relief.

This should have been included in the "framework" agreement between the Legislature and Gov. Cuomo (aka 3 men in a room - Gov. Cuomo, Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, and Speaker Shelly Silver), but it wasn't. That was a mistake on Skelos' part although he has to keep his caucus in line on the other issues.

So, while the legislature could potentially end its session today, it has to deal with several important outstanding bills, including the gay marriage bill and we could be looking at a marathon session once again before the weekend. Either that, or the legislature will be back next week to pass what is still left on the calendar.

NY Faces Budget Mess; Awaiting Action on Same-Sex Marriage; But Finds Time To Name Official Mineral

Priorities people. It is all about the priorities.

The Legislature, which has rarely found itself in a position to adopt an on-time budget, rent control extensions, or act upon controversial legislation like the Marriage Equality Act, did find time to pass legislation that would name the Herkimer Diamond the official mineral of New York.

Herkimer diamonds are interesting minerals to be sure, but it's a footnote when compared to the more momentous legislation pending in the State Senate. The Marriage Equality Act would grant gays the right to marry in New York. Passage would make New York the sixth and largest state to adopt gay marriage rights.

That legislation is still pending as a framework has been agreed to on rent control and other important legislation like tuition hikes for SUNY, power plant siting, and a cap on property taxes.

The framework, which was agreed to yesterday means that we'll once again see all-nighters in Albany as the legislature rushes to adopt the package of bills before leaving town for the year.

Still No Decision on NY Marriage Equality Act or Rent Control As Session Nears End

The New York State 2011 legislative session should have ended yesterday, but it hasn't because of two of the most contentious issues remaining on the table - rent control and the gay marriage bill (the Marriage Equality Act). Right now, there's quite a bit of political maneuvering behind the scenes to get a deal done on both counts. Indeed, both issues are likely to be tied to each other to secure passage of both.



The legislature had extended the existing rent control guidelines until midnight tonight after they were set to expire over the weekend. That's given them some additional time, but the problem is that Republicans would like to see the law extended as it is currently configured, while NYC representatives and the Democratic caucus would like to see them adjusted to give a higher cap (to $300,000) on income and reduced increases in rents on 1-year and 2-year leases.

Rent regulations, which briefly lapsed last week, were last night extended for a second time and will now expire at 12:01 a.m. tomorrow.

Skelos would not accept demands by Silver to raise to $300,000 a year and $3,000 a month the income and rent thresholds at which landlords can strip price controls from a unit. The limits currently stand at $175,000 and $2,000.

"We're looking to protect lower- and moderate-income families," Skelos said.

"But we're not looking to protect the wealthy in New York City."

As the leaders met, the shouts of hundreds of demonstrators echoed through the halls. Some demanded stronger rent laws, some called for a ban on natural-gas drilling, but a vast majority sought to influence any vote on same-sex marriage.

Thirty-one of the Senate's 62 members -- including two Republicans -- have already committed to supporting the same-sex-marriage bill, leaving it just one vote from passage.

For now, the legislature is passing one-day extenders on rent control so that they can continue talks. This is the Albany way.

In the end, I expect deals to be cut on both the gay marriage bill and rent control so that both issues will be passed, and New York will become the sixth (and largest state) to recognize gay marriage.

New York Inches Closer To Granting Gay Marriages

The State Assembly has already passed a version of a gay marriage bill, and the State Senate is considering a version of the bill that would be palatable to religious groups and the vote there hinges on one vote, Republican State Senator Andrew Lanza of Staten Island who is undecided on the bill.

If it passes, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has said that he would sign the bill into law. It would make New York the sixth state to recognize gay marriages. Changes to the bill since it was last considered in the legislature have closed the gap needed for passage.

Negotiators are working on final provisions of a bill to soothe some Senate Republican concerns over how the bill might affect religious institutions, including church-run adoption agencies, and hope a deal will be in place for a vote Monday when the State Senate returns to Albany to wrap up the 2011 session.

Fence-sitting Senate Republicans, including Buffalo Sen. Mark Grisanti, who met with Cuomo in private Friday, say there are still outstanding issues that are keeping them from becoming "yes" votes.

The final version expected to emerge Monday is not expected to be dramatically different than what already passed the Assembly earlier this week. Cuomo said religious groups have raised "legitimate" concerns over religious freedom issues.

The Catholic Church has said the way the bill is written would force them to recognize same-sex marriages for the purposes of church-run adoption agencies, and other religious groups want protections against being penalized by the state -- either losing certain state licenses for various social agencies or their tax-exempt status -- if they do not perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.

Proponents were cautious, though confidence that gay marriage will become legal has been growing in a week that has seen five senators change their positions on the issue, as well as the Assembly's passage of the bill and increasing acknowledgment privately by many Republican senators of the bill's passage. Approval is shy by one vote in the Senate, and any changes made in the coming days can be adopted by an amendment vote in the Assembly instead of a full debate all over again.

Conservative religious groups were pulling out all the stops and hope to pressure Senate Republicans in their districts this weekend.

Protesters are out in force on the Third Floor in the Capitol as they are doing their best to let the legislators know their views.

A legislative adoption of gay marriage rights is preferable to a judicial imposition and if New York enacts a gay marriage law, expect other states to follow suit and model their statutory language on the New York wording.

The bill is A8354. The bill authorizes the granting of civil marriage, while leaving the religious institution of marriage to its own separate, and fully autonomous sphere. It also addresses benefits received by spouses in such gay marriages and puts them on the same footing as those received in heterosexual marriages.

It is interesting that New York, which had lagged on domestic relations law for so long (it was among the last to shift to a no-fault divorce), is now on the cusp of granting gay marriages.

Dueling Rallies (and Families) Fighting For Gay Marriage In New York

Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr., who is a longtime opponent to gay marriage, led a rally in favor of traditional marriage in the Bronx.

That isn't all that surprising given that he and several of his fellow members of the State Senate oppose gay marriage in any formulation (civil unions/marriage).

However, his granddaughter has taken umbrage with his position. Erica Diaz has a personal stake in all this:

Erica Diaz, 22, a gay woman who is the senator’s granddaughter, wanted her grandfather’s supporters to know whom they were opposing.

“I am a Diaz; my family is very political,” said Ms. Diaz, whose pastel pink shirt stood in contrast to her grandfather’s bright white cowboy suit. “It is in my blood to stand up for what I believe in — regardless of who I am up against.”

Ms. Diaz’s supporters, far smaller than the raucous rally on the courthouse steps, numbered a couple of dozen, including her mother, sister and girlfriend.

They spun rainbow umbrellas in the rain and shouted through a bullhorn until a police officer said they did not have the proper permit.

It was years ago that Ms. Diaz told her grandfather that she was gay. The experience, she said, was a positive one. “He told me that regardless of my decision, he is my grandfather, and he loves me, and he respects me,” she recalled. “I respect the fact he believes what he believes.”

and she believes that her grandfather
still loves her, but he doesn't want her to get married to her companion.

At the same time, no one apparently wants to take the civil union approach. That's a compromise approach utilized in other states, but which doesn't have support of either the gay rights community or the Catholic Church, which sees this as simply marriage under a different guise.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo has made this a top priority for resolution in the current legislative session..

New Jersey Legislature To Vote On Illegal Alien Tuition Bill; Gay Marriage Bills: UPDATE: Gay Marriage Bill Defeated

It's a busy week in Trenton as the state legislature is looking to send two of the more controversial legislation pending to Gov. Jon Corzine before he heads into the sunset in less than two weeks and his successor is unlikely to sign them.

The first bill is a measure to give illegal aliens the right to attend the state university system in New Jersey at the in-state tuition rate.

The bill would benefit an estimated 2,000 illegal immigrants, those who support the measure say. Those advocates add that those immigrants sometimes must forego college because of their inability to pay out-of-state rates. Those rates are often twice as high as in-state tuition, which is about $11,000 for a four-year public university.

“It’s going to be tough,” said Cid Wilson, vice chairman of the Board of Trustees at Bergen Community College, and a vocal proponent of the measure. “If it passes, I think it will be very close. We need to remind the legislators that this is not an immigration bill; it’s an education bill.”

Under the proposed measure, illegal immigrants could attend college at in-state tuition rates if they show they have gone to a high school in the state for at least three years, received a high diploma or its equivalent from a state school and provide an affidavit saying that they have applied to immigration authorities to legalize their status.

“There are no special privileges here [for undocumented immigrants],” said Charles “Shai” Goldstein, executive director of the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network, a major proponent of the campaign in support the bills. “The bill has been redrafted over the years to make it as strict as possible.”

The bill would give illegal aliens rights that citizens of other states would not be entitled to - the right to in-state tuition. It's a giveaway that the state simply cannot afford to do. Out-of-state tuition costs double what New Jersey residents pay. That's a benefit that inures to illegal aliens that out-of-state citizens could only wish for.

Corzine has said that he'd sign the measure; Christie would oppose.

Meanwhile, the contentious gay marriage bill is supposed to get a vote today in the State Senate. It has been delayed for some time after proponents realized that they lacked the votes. They still do by the looks of it. Proponents are still eight votes short of having the necessary 21 votes to approve the gay marriage proposal. Only 13 Senators have publicly announced support for the bill.

UPDATE:
The gay marriage bill was defeated 20-14 with three abstentions. The vote cut across party lines, as this list details:

YES (14)

Sen. Jim Whelan (D-Atlantic)
Sen. Bob Smith (D-Middlesex)
Sen. Barbara Buono (D-Middlesex),
Sen. Raymond J. Lesniak (D-Union), co-sponsor
Senate President Richard Codey (D-Essex)
Sen. Teresa M. Ruiz (D-Essex)
Sen. Sandra B. Cunningham (D-Hudson)
Sen. Brian P. Stack (D-Hudson)
Sen. Nia H. Gill (D-Essex)
Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen), co-sponsor
Sen. Robert M. Gordon (D-Bergen)
Sen. Nicholas P. Scutari (D-Union)
Sen. Joseph F.Vitale (D-Middlesex)
Sen. Bill Baroni (R-Mercer)

NO (20)

Sen. Jeff Van Drew (D-Cape May)
Sen. Ronald L. Rice (D- Essex)
Sen. John A. Girgenti (D-Passaic
Sen. Nicholas Sacco (D-Hudson) .
Sen. Fred H. Madden (D-Gloucester)
Sen. Shirley K. Turner (D-Mercer)
Sen. Robert W. Singer (R-Ocean)
Sen. Joseph Pennacchio (R-Morris)
Sen. Christopher Bateman, (R-Somerset)
Sen. Tom Kean Jr. (R -Union)
Sen. Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth )
Sen. Joseph M. Kyrillos (R-Monmouth)
Sen. Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen)
Sen. Michael Doherty (R-Hunterdon)
Sen. Kevin J. O'Toole (R-Essex)
Sen. Philip E. Haines (R-Burlington)
Sen. Christopher J. Connors (R-Ocean)
Sen. Anthony R. Bucco (R-Morris)
Sen. Steven V. Oroho (R-Sussex)
Sen. Sean T. Kean (R-Monmouth)

ABSTENTIONS (3)

Sen. Paul A. Sarlo (D-Bergen)
Sen. Stephen M. Sweeney (D-Gloucester)
Sen. James Beach (D-Camden)

DID NOT ATTEND SESSION (2)

Sen. Diane B. Allen (R-Burlington)
Sen. Andrew Ciesla (R-Ocean)

UPDATE:
The vote on in-state tuition for illegal aliens was delayed.