GAY RIGHTS MEASURES PASSES IN NEW YORK, PATAKI GLEEFULLY SIGNS INTO LAW.

Albany Times Union ^

[1Old Pro]

Gay-rights measure passes
Pataki signs bill without transgender amendment
 Tougher DWI limit finally sails through
 More news from the Capitol

 

Gay-rights measure passes

Pataki signs bill without transgender amendment

By ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau
First published: Wednesday, December 18, 2002

Republican Gov. George Pataki on Tuesday signed a landmark gay-rights bill just hours after the GOP-controlled state Senate approved the measure.

Although the outcome remained unclear until the very moment votes were cast, the bill known as the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) passed the Senate 34-26, marking a significant victory for gay-rights advocates who have been fighting for the measure for 31 years. The Democrat-dominated Assembly passed SONDA earlier this year, as it has annually since 1993.

"I'm very pleased," said Pataki, who had personally lobbied some senators to vote for SONDA. "We're one New York. It's not upstate, downstate, Republican, Democrat, black, white, straight, gay. The passage of this bill is another important step in confirmation of that."

SONDA extends the state's civil rights laws to make discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, education, health care and other public services illegal. Eleven other states and the District of Columbia have similar laws on their books.

The long-awaited victory was particularly sweet for the Empire State Pride Agenda, New York's largest gay-rights group, which endorsed Pataki in his bid for a third term this fall. Many believe it was part of a political deal between the Pride Agenda and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, who agreed to bring SONDA up for a vote after years of blocking it but didn't promise it would pass.

Sen. Daniel Hevesi, D-Queens, who is not returning to the Senate next year, condemned the way SONDA came up for a vote, calling it "simply reprehensible."

"The way this bill came to the floor today was not through some Democratic process," said Hevesi, who voted for SONDA but wanted it amended to include protection for transgender individuals. "It was a deal made solely for political expediency."

Both Bruno, who voted for SONDA, and Empire State Pride Agenda Executive Director Matt Foreman denied any deal. Foreman hailed SONDA as "one of the broadest anti-gay discrimination laws in the nation."

But the win was bittersweet for senators and advocates who unsuccessfully sought to include protection for transgender people -- transsexuals, cross-dressers, effeminate men and masculine women.

"I feel great about SONDA passing, but I feel like I have to get up tomorrow and fight again because not everyone got covered," said Sen. Thomas Duane, D-Manhattan, the Senate's only openly gay and openly HIV-positive member.

After painting a grim picture of how transgender people are discriminated against for their nonconformist lifestyles and appearances, Duane introduced an amendment to extend SONDA to cover "gender expression." It failed, 19-40, with only Democrats in favor.

The unamended version passed with 21 Democrats and 13 Republicans voting for it.

Duane pledged to introduce a bill next year that would protect transgender people, and Foreman said Empire State Pride Agenda would use SONDA as a springboard from which to fight for it. But transgender activists who traveled to the Capitol from New York City were not consoled.

"I'm disappointed," said Chelsea Goodwin, program director of the Metropolitan Gender Network. "I want to send a message that backroom political deals that extend to some of us, but not all of us, are not acceptable and will not be tolerated."

The vote on SONDA generated more controversy and caused more uncertainty than the Senate has seen in a long time. Typically, bills that make it to the floor for a vote have a virtual lock on passing. But headcounts on SONDA remained close right down to the wire, leading to intense lobbying by those both in favor and against it.

Lines of people who wanted to sit in the Senate galleries to witness the historic debate and vote snaked down the fourth-floor hallway and around the corner.

Early in the day, activists who were ironically seeking the same outcome -- SONDA's demise -- clashed during a rally outside the Capitol.

Transgender activists wanted the measure rejected unless it included them. Conservative activists said the bill would unfairly provide special protection for a specific group of people and argued that it would infringe on the right of religious individuals or groups to refuse to hire or provide services to those who don't share their views.

"Christian businessmen should have the right to not hire people that they believe are engaged in immoral behavior," said the Rev. Duane Motley of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. "Christian landlords should have the right to rent to people that they believe are morally upright. Churches and Christian schools have the right to say homosexuality is a sin without fear of being accused of hate speech."

Sen. Nancy Larraine Hoffmann, a Syracuse Republican who sponsored SONDA, said the bill does not alter clauses in the existing civil rights law that exempt religious organizations. But some senators, like Hugh Farley, R-Niskayuna, were not convinced.

"The lack of a comprehensive religious exemption, that alone is enough for me to vote 'no,' " said Farley.

[1Old Pro]

In point of fact, the process has already started. It's not going to produce results many of us will like.

Indeed

[Wallace T.]

When governments can dictate to whom a property owner may sell or rent his property, whom an employer may hire, or whom a hotel or restaurant may serve, this represents a denial of rights, the rights to private property and its enjoyment, to contract, and to freedom of association. Rather than being a granting of rights to certain classes, "civil rights," as liberals use the term, is actually a denial of rights, not an extension of them. It is, at its core, an expansion of governmental power over private matters.

Laws prohibiting certain sexual practices on private property are also unwarranted intrusions on liberty. So were the Jim Crow statutes that mandated segregation of public accomodations.

As Thomas Jefferson put it: the government that governs best is the one that governs least.

[banjo joe]

Are there any real Republicans out there anymore?

A few. Or maybe a couple. The rest caved and got in on the gound floor of the new opportunity: socialism.

[Gerish]

I agree with you - this really is so sad. I am so embarrassed sometimes to live in this State. Republicans act more like Democrats here everyday. Pataki is the worst of the bunch!

[jimt]

Your #22 is well stated and accurate.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Republican Gov. George Pataki on Tuesday signed a landmark gay-rights bill just hours after the GOP-controlled state Senate approved the measure.

Another one of the many reasons why I vote Libertarian or Constitution party.

[Zack Nguyen]

"Christian businessmen should have the right to not hire people that they believe are engaged in immoral behavior," said the Rev. Duane Motley of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms.

Indeed they do have that right before God. But Christians and pastors now face a government that no longer regards that as a right and refuses to protect it.

Another reason for Christians to vote.

[FourtySeven]

I think homosexuality is not only disgusting, but also a sin in the eyes before God. There's no way an unrepentant homosexual will go to heaven (see I Cor 6:9-11).

That said, I don't see how this legistlation denies the rights of Christians (true Christians) anywhere, in any way. I don't know of any Bible passage that commands one to, "Deny homosexuals living quarters, or a means with which to support themselves (jobs)." If anyone can provide me with such, I'd be most appreciative, as I don't claim to know everything.

As far as I can recall however, Jesus never said harm a sinner physically. Ever. His commandment, derived from the Holy Bible at the time, was to attack sin itself, but to love the sinner. Indeed, instead of denying sinners basic physical needs like shelter and food, a TRUE Christian is to do the exact opposite.

I believe, or I'd like to believe, that you people on this thread are confusing this legistlation with other proposed legistlation around the country that would make it a crime to merely condemn homosexuality IN CHURCH! That so called "hate speech" legislation is absolutely a threat to the true Christian, and therefore should be fought.

However, this legislation is not about the speech, it's about the actions, and once again, I respectfully submit that if you're using your position of "power" to deny homosexuals food and shelter, then you're no true Christian at all.

Let's pick and choose our battles wisely people. Thank you.

[TruthNtegrity]

Rather than being a granting of rights to certain classes, "civil rights," as liberals use the term, is actually a denial of rights, not an extension of them. It is, at its core, an expansion of governmental power over private matters.

More and more, laws are overtaking the Christian beliefs we were raised with; principles that this Country was founded on. What is happening to us? The right of the minority, the right of the warped, perverse and sinful are elevated to suppress the right and the good. I am happy to say that I am from New York, and no longer mention that I lived the first half of my life there.

And what part of this bill so thrilled Pataki that he is described as gleefully signing the thing?

[JohnnyZ]

Pataki for Prez 2008!!! LOL

[Elsie]

I, for one, am GLAD this bill passed (in New York). Now perhaps there will be a magnetic effect that will draw them away from MY state!

[Clemenza]

What next, protect vegetarians? Foot fetishists? Chronic onanists?

This is an attack on Freedom of Association, period. Even if you believe in anti-discrimination laws, you must acknowledge the fact that 1. it is not clear whether or not same-sex lust is an ingrained biological characteristic or a life style choice or 2. that NO ONE should be forced to accept a lifestyle contrary to their religious beliefs.

Its sickening that anyone who considers themselves a "conservative" would think otherwise, as this will fail to "leave alone" members of religious sects who have a legitimate moral objection. Then again, this is in New York, where there are few Republicans of ANY moral conviction.

You're a Christian who doesn't want Homosexuals teaching their lifestyle in you Christian school? You fire somebody against a public display of their lifestyle? Guess what, THE NEW YORK CONSCIENCE POLICE WILL GET YOU!