Connect with us

Quotes From New York State Senators On Gay Marriage Bill

Published

on

Below is a continuously updated and quick transcription of some statements being made right now on the floor of the New York State Senate as they debate the gay marriage bill today. Quotes are exact as I can manage! Refresh the page often – newest are at the bottom.

Eric Schneiderman: This is a vote that is not about morality, that is not about religion. You can’t legislate morality, but you can legislate justice. This is about the essence of the United States of America. Every generation is called to this challenge to the quintessential challenge of making Thomas Jefferson’s words more true. This bill hurts no one. Vote for justice, vote for equality, vote for your affirmation that all men and women are created equal.

Eric Adams: There are certain moments here where we can benchmark our lives by the votes we took. (Listed group of states) All states that bought and sold slaves at one time or another. It was only until 1967, before my son could marry (another senator’s) daughter. Thank God for Google. Go read what they said about blacks being able to marry. The same comment made about Tom Duane wanting to be married are the same comments my grandmother was told. Some say, don’t try to make this a civil rights issue. When I walk through these doors, my bible stays out. I make laws that protect the entire state. There is one thing about New York: We have the legacy that sets the tone of the rest of the country. I’m going to be an agent of change. You don’t have to be gay to respect the rights of those who are. You don’t have to be black to understand the pain of slavery.

Jeffery Klein: I’d like to apologize that this took so long. (Quotes from the 14th Amendment.) I think it’s important to read the statement from Mrs. Loving (Loving vs. Virginia) NYC will benefit by $200 million if we pass gay marriage. Make a decision today not based on political reasons. This is an issue of fairness.

David Valesky: This can’t be a matter of religion. Nothing we do can be done in violation of the United States Constitution. The founding fathers made it very clear that freedom of religion is one of the most important tenets of this democracy. This bill does not, could not, and as long as our constitution stands, could never compel any house of worship to do anything against their beliefs.

Kevin Parker: The time to pass this legislation is now, because it is still the right thing to do. The morality stands in doing the right thing. We have an opportunity to change our history. This is the time we strike a blow to one of the last inequalities in our country. (Reads benefits same sex couples cannot currently acquire.) This bill is about millions of families and the basic protections they need. As we sit here now its almost ridiculous to think that at one time African-Americans could not even marry each other. I’m hoping that the idea in a few years that same sex couples couldn’t marry will be seen as equally ridiculous.

Pedro Espada: If this vote were taken in my district today, this bill would fail. But this is not about demographics, this is not about religion. Is it a vote of conscience? What is a vote of conscience? It is constitutionally correct to vote “yes.” Let’s write this headline, let’s send a message of hope, by voting yes here today. Let’s not continue to be scared into ignorance.

Diane Savino: Rarely have we faced an issue as important as this. Tens of thousands of New Yorkers lives hang in the balance here today. I hope we are going to make that history here today. This vote is about an issue of fairness and equality. We in government don’t determine the quality or the validity of relationships, if we did we wouldn’t give three quarters of the licenses we do. What are we really protecting, when you look at the divorce rate in this country. We’re giving away husbands on a game show. That’s what we’ve done to marriage in America. People stand up in front of God and swear to honor and obey, and they don’t mean a word of it. We have nothing to fear from love and commitment.

Liz Krueger: Ask yourself, how can you vote “no.”

Daniel Squadron: It’s a bill that really has to do with what sort of government we have.

Velmanette Montgomery: I will only add that in my family and my culture I just want to remind my colleagues, it was always considered that if you were living together and not married, in those days, you were living in sin. I know the whole institution of marriage has changed over time. There are some states that actually recognized common law marriage. The institution of marriage is actually a part of our government contractual practice, and we also attach religion to it. I want to remind you that if a minister marries you, and you don’t go to court, you are not married. If our husbands decide, as often happens, that they want to run away, there are certain protections I want everyone to have. I want to talk about the ministers, the doctors, the choir directors, many of whom are gay, and people in all walks of life, African Americans, Latinos, white people, black people, men, women, they are my constituents too, they would like to have the right to marry. I am voting yes so you can have the right to marry.

Jose Serrano: This is a great day. History has proven that extending civil rights further will make our communities stronger. No one should be subjugated to less rights than anyone else. Extending freedom through marriage equality is the foundation of the American ideal. What separates this nation is that we dare to say the things that others refuse to say. We cannot be free until all of us are afforded the same rights that everyone should have.

Ruth Hassell-Thompson: My oldest brother was gay. Publicly that’s something I’ve not said before. (Told a very moving story about her brother and his life away from home in France.) People have the right to choose. This bill is about giving them the right to choose. If there’s a condemnation in that choice then that is between them and God.

Craig Johnson: On January 10th, 1998, I exercised my right to marry my wife. This bill is simple, it does two things. It’s about equality. The notion of a civl union creates a separate but equal system. This bill is also about love. What’s interesting is look at the history of marriage. Historically marriage wasn’t about love it was about property. This is about civil marriage. There comes a time for this body to step up.

Bill Perkins: History reminds me that more than half of the people here would not be during another point in time. Get ready, marriage equality is here, it is inevitable. I can see Dr. Martin Luthor King smiling down on us today.

Suzi Oppenheimer: I’m glad we’re doing this today. I feel strongly that everyone is entitled to equal rights and protections. It is most assuredly a civil issue not a religious issue. Some have said it diminishes their marriage. I don’t understand that. Almost all of us have friends who are lesbian or gay. And they are for the most part in serious committed relationships in long standing. They are stable people. Isn’t that what we want?

Malcolm Smith: People are asking me, “Why are you supporting marriage?” When I ask them is why are you not? They retreat to the bible. The bible does not say same sex marriage is wrong. What is wrong is when you quote a bible for your own purposes. Please don’t quote the bible or refer to it if you don’t know what it means. Because of my religious relationships, I believe everyone in this chamber has experienced discrimination. When you experienced discrimination, it hurt. The completion of a family is not the children but a marriage. This is not a challenge to the church. It takes one. Rosa Parks was that one. Tom Duane is that one. Colleagues, we need to do this today. A win is 35 votes.

Thomas Duane: “I’m like a dog with a bone, I won’t let go until the last moment. The time is never right for civil rights. The economy, wars… it’s never, ever the right time for civil rights. But the paradox is it’s always the right time to be on the right side of history. Now is the time to put that into law – the same way that we have treated you, you have treated us. let’s not have a do-over. I was out when Harvey Milk was around, I’ve been gay a long time. Soon, I’m going to be a married gay.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

13 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

16 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

19 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.