DAN'S PAPERS, May 22, 2009 Page 44 www.danshamptons.com (continued from previous page)
that the bill moves to the Senate floor for a vote, which has to happen by the end of June, when they break for recess. While Democrats control the Senate 32 to 30, all would have to be in favor for the bill to pass. But already a handful of conservative Democrats have committed to ‘no’ votes. “I don’t know how many democrats you’ll lose,” said Thiele. “On the other hand, a number of Republican senators want to vote for this — the hardest one to get is the first.” An obvious first, at least in terms of geography, is LaValle. But many close to the Senator and those who have met with him believe ultimately he is unlikely to be a “swing” voter (although LaValle was in sup-
1196757
were substantially positive,” he said. What he thought might be the acid test was his appearance the day after his vote on WLNG’s radio call-in program, something he does weekly. “I talked about the marriage equality issue right at the top. I explained my vote. The phone never stopped ringing.” Laughing, Thiele went on, “There wasn’t ONE question on gay marriage! It was mostly about fishing quotas!” But Theile’s decision did have significant political ramifications. It shined a light on other Suffolk County legislators, particularly Republican Kenneth LaValle of Selden, a 30year veteran in the Senate. The next step is
1198387
Change
port of civil unions). There’s an argument that by voting against the measure, LaValle will prove himself to be out of touch with his constituents. In April, a Siena poll reported that 53% of New Yorkers (including Eastern Suffolk residents) approved of the state legislature voting in favor of the measure. A recent Quinnipiac University poll that found 46% of New Yorkers are in favor of legalizing same sex marriage, and 46% are opposed, a big change from 2004 when 55% opposed. The issue of same sex marriage was brought to light in April by Governor Paterson, who announced that he would introduce the legislation. Patterson, a longtime advocate of civil rights, proposed a bill that would allow civil marriage of same sex couples, while prohibiting clergy from being obligated to perform the rites. Paterson did introduce the bill on April 16. Surprisingly, the action wasn’t completely embraced by the gay community — some of whom say the bill shouldn’t be brought to a vote unless it’s a sure bet in the Senate. They maintain that failure in New York, now surrounded by states supporting same-sex marriage, would send a negative message to the rest of the country. Thiele didn’t see that as a legitimate reason to halt the initiative. “This is an important issue that should be voted on,” he said. “It’s important to make elected representatives tell you where they stand. If it doesn’t pass this year, it’s not the end of the world. “Look at it on a federal level,” he continued. “Civil rights bills failed for a decade before they were passed.” Thiele’s recommendation to put it to a vote was echoed by the Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay lobbying group. But the fact is, whether the bill even makes it to the Senate is up to Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, who has said that he won’t bring it to the floor unless he knows he’ll get enough votes for it to pass. There was another issue raised about Paterson’s proposal: the governor’s motives for introducing the bill. “I personally feel that this is a publicity stunt on the governor’s part,” said Ken Allen, Co-chair of the East End Gay Organization, which has been active in the Hamptons for almost 30 years. “But from the foundation standpoint, we applaud the effort. Whether the timing is right or not, he’s doing it.” Thiele had a different take on Paterson’s motivation. “I think he wants to do the right thing — just like he did with Broadwater. Yes, his ratings are low, but this isn’t the strategy to change those numbers.” Only after the vote — if it comes to that — will much be revealed: Which way LaValle and other senators went; the impact on Paterson’s popularity. But however it turns out, Thiele, based on his own experience, believes the bottom line is that an elected official must be accountable to his or her constituents. “No one will agree with you 100% of the time,” he said. “But even if you don’t agree with me, my hope is that you’ll respect the process that brought me here.”