Glick pessimistic about gay marraige bill in Albany

Volume One, Issue 17, January 19 - 25, 2007

Glick guarded about gay marriage bill in Albany

Chelsea Now file photo
Deborah Glick in Albany with Empire State Pride Agenda’s Alan Van Cappelle in 2004.

By PAUL SCHINDLER

Asked last week about the push for a marriage equality law in Albany, Deborah Glick, a 16-year state Assembly veteran and the longest-serving lesbian or gay elected official in New York, warned, “I don’t think in many places it will be an easy sell.”

At the same time, the West Village Democrat voiced unambiguous confidence that if gay marriage supporters can line up a majority of the 150-seat Assembly in favor of such a bill from among her 107 Democratic colleagues, Speaker Sheldon Silver will bring the measure to a floor vote.

According to a running tally by the Empire State Pride Agenda (ESPA), the state’s LGBT rights lobby, 51 assemblymembers, all but two of them Democrats, have indicated support for equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. Twenty-five assemblymembers have signaled opposition, eight of them Democrats.

That leaves 57 Assembly Democrats uncommitted at this stage, from which gay marriage supporters will have to pick up at least 27, and probably a few more for comfort, in order to give the speaker confidence in bringing the measure up for a vote. Glick made clear that the Democrats do not bring legislation to the floor unless they have the votes among their own members to ensure passage.

To date, Silver, whose Lower East Side constituency includes a significant number of Orthodox Jews, many of whose leaders traditionally have strongly opposed gay civil rights measures, has deferred comment on the marriage issue, saying he needed to first consult with the his Democratic Conference, which holds an outsized majority in the chamber.

“If the sense of the Conference is in support, the bill would be moved” for a vote of the full Assembly, Glick said during a one-hour interview.

Even if the Assembly were to pass a gay marriage bill, Senate action under the current Republican leadership is inconceivable. However, a special election February 6 in Nassau County to fill the seat vacated by Republican Michael Balboni, who has become the state’s homeland security chief, and the grand jury probe into the business dealings of Majority Leader Joseph Bruno have clouded the GOP grip on the Senate, where that party currently holds a 33-28 majority.

Eliot Spitzer, the new Democratic governor, has pledged his support for gay marriage.

But Glick cautioned against overconfidence even in winning support among her New York City Assembly Democratic colleagues. Her comments as well suggested the potential for disagreement among legislators pushing for a marriage bill about how best to proceed.

This past September, Jonathan Bing, a Democratic assemblyman who represents the Upper East Side, predicted that “the vast majority of New York City Democrats are going to support” a marriage equality bill, estimating a tally of between 58 and 60 in support out of the 64 Democrats from the five boroughs. With 21 Democratic votes already identified outside the city by ESPA, if Bing’s prediction were borne out, sufficient votes would be there for passage in the Assembly.

Glick, however, is less buoyant than her Manhattan colleague. Asked whether she agreed with Bing’s projection, she responded, “No, I don’t think that at all. There are a whole bunch of people in the city that would never support it… [It] could be 30 percent of the city delegation.”

After specifically mentioning Dov Hikind, a veteran Brooklyn Democrat who also represents a large Orthodox community in Borough Park and has been a fierce opponent of gay rights, she noted that the Catholic Church as well would exert considerable contrary influence on her colleagues’ thinking.

Hikind is joined by his Democratic colleagues Diane Gordon, who represents East New York, Brownsville, and Canarsie in Brooklyn, and Anthony Seminerio, of Ozone Park, Queens, in already stating opposition to marriage equality. Still, among city Democrats who have staked out a position to date, gay marriage supporters outnumber those who are against it nearly 10 to one. Glick’s worst-case scenario assumes that advocates do no better than even among the remaining uncommitted 32 assemblymembers from the five boroughs.

Before any official tally of votes takes place, of course, the measure must first be introduced in both the Assembly and the Senate. On this point, Glick could well find herself at odds with the two legislators who have to date carried the measure—Assemblyman Dick Gottfried and Senator Tom Duane. The two Chelsea Democrats have said they will re-file their legislation next month, perhaps in conjunction with Freedom to Marry Week, pegged to coincide with Valentine’s Day, February 14.

Glick, in contrast, urged legislators to hold off until Spitzer is ready to introduce his gay marriage “program bill,” a term designed to convey the importance a governor places on one of his legislative initiatives.

In a recent telephone interview Gottfried said he certainly plans to move prior to March or April, which he estimated was the earliest that the governor—preoccupied early on with the budget plan he will announce January 31—would act on marriage. Duane also told the newspaper he would act next month.

Glick professed she had heard nothing of Gottfried and Duane’s plans to re-file their legislation, but said, “If it was up to me and I could convince each and every one of my colleagues who is supportive and thinks they want to be as helpful as possible, I would urge them to put their energy not into trying to figure out how they could introduce their own bill but to speak with one voice urging the governor to introduce his bill as soon as possible.”

“Strategically it doesn’t make sense, especially with a governor who comes with very strong numbers,” she said of any legislative bill in advance of Spitzer’s. “For those members who would be somewhat nervous about it to say, ‘I supported the governor’s bill’ makes it a much easier sell though I don’t think in many places it will be an easy sell.”

Gottfried, in turn, said he had not heard of Glick’s position.

“It certainly makes sense for people to be urging the governor to put his bill in sooner rather than later,” he said. “But, I don’t see that at all in conflict with putting in the Duane-Gottfried bill now to build co-sponsors. To get members to sign onto a bill, there has to be a bill.”

Gottfried added, “We would certainly look forward to harmonizing, to coordinating with the governor when he puts his bill in,” and said he would “expect” to continue as sponsor of the bill when it gains Spitzer’s imprimatur.

But Glick’s comments on sponsorship of the Spitzer bill suggest there may be some tough discussions ahead for Assembly Democrats.

“On some level it’s an internal discussion as to who carries legislation,” she said. “I would hope that there would be a unified strategic approach on LGBT rights which would mean that the LGBT community would be driving the train.”

Glick’s “driving the train” formulation recalled a battle she and Gottfried waged last spring over a measure he sponsored regarding medical decision-making for patients too sick to state their own wishes. Glick criticized the measure for not explicitly recognizing the rights of domestic partners and for referring to “the impact of treatment decisions on the fetus,” which she said posed the risk of a slippery slope regarding a woman’s right to choose.

She said back then that “I am very tired of Dick Gottfried playing the best friend of the gay community at home when he’s constantly undermining the gay elected officials in Albany.” His response was terse: “I am not interested in engaging in that kind of dispute.”

Duane shared Gottfried’s view that re-filing marriage legislation next month is appropriate politically.

“If the governor makes my bill his program then it is already introduced,” he said. “If the governor introduces a different version, we can discuss it with the governor’s people. We will all work to together in any event.”

Duane said he is working to build support in the Senate and understands that Spitzer has only committed to moving his bill sometime in the current legislative session, which runs until the 2008 elections.

Asked whether he saw the potential for conflict over sponsorship of the Spitzer measure in the Assembly, Duane said, “I’m not sticking my nose into that.”