Today, sometime after 4:00 PM, the New York State Senate held a short session, the first since June 8, when the Republican Coup stalled the people’s business for fifteen days. The session, called “extraordinary” because the Legislature’s official session closed Monday, was anything but. The Senate session was on-again-off-again. Televised for New York state residents, cameras in the chamber went on and off. Then on, then off for a “three minute recess” that lasted more than thirty.
Governor David Paterson, true to his word, called this special session, and then, once it was done, once all of five bills were passed, the Governor called it “disgusting,” and a “dereliction of duty.”
The Governor has now added another ten bills to the fifty-five bills that were on the calendar. And number one on the Governor’s list for tomorrow’s session: the gay marriage bill.
But Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., has more shenanigans up his sleeve. The Daily News reports:
“I asked Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr., who has pledged a rebellion if gay marriage comes to the floor of the Senate, what he will do tomorrow if this comes to pass. He said he will do “something,” and assured me it will be “big.”
“Tomorrow we will have a good time,” Diaz Sr. told the DN’s Glenn Blain. “Maybe I’m not upset. Maybe I solve the whole the problem tomorrow. Maybe tomorrow we come to an agreement and decide who’s really in control.”Asked if that means he might switch sides and join the Republicans, the Bronx senator balked.
“Maybe tomorrow…Maybe. I don’t know. I’m not saying anything…Who is asking me that? I don’t know. Who knows what’s going to happen tomorrow. Tomorrow is always uncertain. Tomorrow may never come.”To which Blain, to his credit, replied – completely deadpan: “I’m pretty sure tomorrow will come.”
Isn’t it time that Senators like Diaz, Sr., retire?
As I wrote back in April,
“The question here really is, is Diaz a state legislator representing all of his Bronx, NY constituents, or a religious leader on the state’s payroll? Additionally, why is Diaz concerned only with Christian religions? What about his constituents who are Jewish? Or, agnostic? He needs to be confronted with these questions once and for all.”