NOTE: The other day, while looking for an appropriate same sex marriage link from my archives, I discovered that one of my pieces was unaccountably deleted. As far as I can tell, this is the only piece this has ever happened to.
In the interest of archive maintenance, it is hereby reposted, together with a Roscoe Conway comment I also happened to have saved:
I Want your Sex Thu, 12/03/2009 – 12:24am
Where was George Michaels when we needed him today?
George Michaels, not George Michael.
From THE NEW YORK TIMES (12/5/1992): Former Assemblyman George M. Michaels, who cast the deciding vote to liberalize New York's abortion law in 1970, thereby ending his political career, died on Thursday at his home in Auburn, N.Y. He was 80 years old…
From WIKIPEDIA: He was elected to the New York State Assembly in 1960, where he was an advocate for expanded state aid to rural school districts and in sentencing and prison issues. He was the sponsor of the 1970 bill that made the bluebird the official state bird of New York.
THE TIMES: A Democrat, Mr. Michaels represented a largely rural, mostly conservative and heavily Roman Catholic constituency in the Finger Lakes region of west-central New York. That put him in a difficult position on the abortion issue. An 1832 state law forbade abortion except "when necessary to save a life." In the 1960's, legislation was introduced to make New York's law the most liberal in the nation, allowing abortion in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy if a woman and her doctor agreed to it. The proposal became the most dramatic, contentious and emotional issue before the 1970 Legislature.
A groundswell for change in abortion laws, which dated to the 19th century, had been building in the country. In 1965, Colorado became the first state to lessen the restrictions on abortion.
Mr. Michaels personally favored a woman's right to choose but had voted against the proposed law twice at the behest of the Cayuga County Democratic Committee. He did so at the beginning of April 1970 when the bill went down to a narrow defeat.
WIKIPEDIA: Franz Leichter, a Democratic Assemblyman from Manhattan drafted a bill expanding abortion rights together with Republican Assemblywoman Constance Cook of upstate Tompkins County, New York, proposing legislation that included no restrictions on the practice of abortion. The bill passed in the Senate on March 18, 1970 after five hours of debate by a vote of 31–26. For the Assembly, the bill was amended to allow for women to have abortions until their 24th week of pregnancy or at any time to protect the life of the mother. As the roll call progressed in the Assembly on April 9, 1970, the legislature deadlocked at 74 in favor and 74 opposed, with one member absent and the Assembly speaker not voting, leaving the count two short of the absolute majority of 76 members of the 150-member Assembly needed to pass the bill.
EMILY ULLMAN: Michaels had compiled a highly conservative voting record and had several times previously voted against any change in the legal status of abortion. However, his personal convictions were with the pro-repeal camp. One of his sons, a rabbinic intern in a Cincinnati ghetto, had told his father about the poor women he had seen mangled by back-alley abortions, a problem that affected Michaels deeply.
LAWRENCE TRIBE: When Assemblymen Michaels tried to explain to his family that his vote was not so important because repeal would pass anyway in a few years, his wife had replied, “In the meantime, thousands of women will be butchered in underworld abortions.”
ULLMAN: Hoping to satisfy his conscience as well as keep his seat, he promised his family and Constance Cook that he would vote to repeal if his was the deciding ballot.
WIKIPEDIA: Michaels had earlier voted against the proposal during the roll call, but rose to speak before the Clerk of the Assembly could close the vote and bring it to defeat.
Those assembled in the galleries were unsure of his purpose, but he alluded to his intentions when he said that his constituents were going to "condemn me for what I am about to do". He continued with his speech, stating "I realize, Mr. Speaker, that I am terminating my political career, but I cannot in good conscience sit here and allow my vote to be the one that defeats this bill … [and asked] that my vote be changed from "no" to "yes"". His prediction regarding his political future turned out to be accurate. In explaining his change of heart, Michaels later recounted that "One of my sons just called me a whore for the vote I cast against this" and that another son had insisted that "Dad, for God's sake, don't let your vote be the vote that defeats this bill." After his changed vote, the chamber erupted in bedlam, Michaels buried his face in his hands and epithets were shouted at him.
THE TIMES: His tearful reversal provided the 76th vote needed for passage. The State Senate quickly added its approval and Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller signed the bill into law. "I found myself caught up in something bigger than I am," Mr. Michaels said about his agonizing decision. "I'm just a small country lawyer."
WIKIPEDIA: With the switch by Michaels, the measure passed by a margin of 76 to 73 in the Assembly. Governor of New York Nelson Rockefeller signed the law the next day and the U.S. Supreme Court patterned its ruling in its landmark January 1973 decision Roe v. Wade on the New York law
ULLMAN: The voters of Cayuga County were appalled at what they felt was a betrayal of their wishes. Threats and vicious letters required the Auburn Police Department to post guards outside Michaels’ home, and his law firm broke up when his partner refused to be associated with him. Two priests in Auburn organized a campaign against Michaels branding him a murderer and traitor to his party, and bending to the overwhelming adverse sentiment, the Cayuga County Democratic Party denied him what otherwise would have been a routine renomination three months later. Doggedly competing in a four-way primary without organizational support or money, Michaels went on speaking tours and attempted to explain his choice to his constituency. On one of these trips, he ran his car into a bridge and was hospitalized with a shattered leg and seven broken ribs.
Unable to complete his campaign, he was defeated in the primary. Nevertheless, he ran on the Liberal party line in the general election, but was again defeated.
TRIBE: [H]e has never expressed regrets. Michaels later said to Lawrence Lader, “I spent 37 months in the Marines in World War Two, much of it in combat in the Pacific under mortar fire. This [feeling before I switched my vote] was worse than anything. It was the summit of my life.”
Instead of George Michaels, advocates of marriage equality in New York State got the George Michael treatment.
We Got WHAMed.
Why were there no profiles in courage?
Well, actually, I think there were a few, including Craig Johnson of Nassau County (which was just the cite of a major pro-Republican upheaval), Brian Foley of Suffolk and Dave Valesky of Syracuse, all marginals; not to mention Diane Savino, whose district includes Borough Park, and whose moving floor speech , in which her impressive attributes (including, but not restricted to, brains and sense of humor) were so strikingly displayed that they would have inspired me to propose, were I not already unavailable.
Nonetheless, those acts of honor were not sufficient.
Back in April I wrote “There are several legislators who understand that voting for same-sex marriage may be the political equivalent of painting a target on their shirts. Nonetheless, they are willing to vote for it in service of the greater good and suffer the risk their courage will entail, if the risk they entail results in the change they desire.”
Three Republicans were said to be ready to play the George Michaels role, if indeed that was the role they would be playing. But they were apparently unwilling to do so until there were 29 Democrats in place to allow them to play that role. There were only 24.
So, instead of George Michaels trembling with courage, we were greeted with the image of Jim Alessi trembling in cowardice.
That there were only three Republicans even willing to consider taking the plunge is testament to the growing power of the party’s far right wing. Last month’s election day was a triumph for Conservative Party Leader Mike Long (marred only by the victory in Nassau of Republican County Executive candidate Edward Mangano, without the support of Long and his party).
The public humiliation of Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, forced to withdraw from a Congressional race where her party nomination was normally tantamount to victory, followed by a public flogging where she was forced to surrender her last shred of dignity, along with a party position carrying a significant stipend, was a shot heard round the Republican world.
And the cause precedent for the equivalent of her public head shaving, tarring and feathering was Scozzafava’s vote for legalizing same-sex marriage. Even those party-members (plenty of them) unafraid of losing Mike Long’s party line, were afraid of facing primaries in which the rapidly shrinking voting base of their party’s prime voters was largely limited to tea-baggers (and not the sort of tea-baggers sympathetic to the concerns of the LGBT community).
The left wing blogs are seething with anger, as well they should be. The anger is mostly directed against the eight Democrats who voted against the bill.
Dan Jacoby sums up the sentiment on both Albany Project and Daily Gotham:
“Now we know who the targets are next year.”
On some level this is justified, but it does not really deal with the problems.
The problems is picking up eight votes.
Albany Project’s Robert Harding published an incredibly stupid article describing seven of these Democrats as tempting targets because their district’s enrollment figures are so “blue.” Typical of Harding to rely upon a useless metric like party enrollment than the actual facts on the ground.
In picking up eight votes, the first two are the easiest.
Hiram Monseratte of Queens represents a district which include the gay ghetto of Jackson Heights. Even if one were to believe that the majority of voters in Monserrate’s district were opposed to same sex marriage, the only universe that counts is those voters who participate in Democratic primaries, a far more sympathetic forum for the Gay community.
Further, the most passionate voters in Monserrate’s district on this issue are those who favor changing the law.
Monserrate surely knows this, and up until now, his record has been unfailingly in line with the wishes of the LGBT community. There is no rational explanation for Monserrate’s vote.
Which makes Monserrate’s vote perfectly consistent with all of his other recent behavior.
The entire political world, including the Queens Democratic Party and the WFP, have formed the same firing squad against Monserrate they once formed to put him into the Senate in the first place, forcing out the far superior John Sabini. There is little doubt they will succeed again in such an effort.
And this time they will be right.
Also soon to be gone is the venerable George Onorato, a good and decent old line labor Catholic. Many people throw out the word “bigot” far too easily, but no one who knows George Onorato, who struggled mightily with the conflict between his conscience and his religious upbringing, and then voted for SONDA, can call him a hater.
Unfortunately, in the case of same sex marriage, Onorato’s conscience and his religious convictions were on the same page.
George Onorato is just a man whose time has passed by and whose district has changed out from underneath him. Hopefully, he will recognize this and retire gracefully, so that someone like Eric Gioia or Mike Giannaris can take his place. If not, he has surely signed his political death warrant with this vote in the same manner that George Michael signed his.
How sad to lose one’s seat for voting one conscience when one’s conscience is so damned wrong.
But after that, the Democratic pickins get far more slim.
Shirley Huntley of Queens is a political accident, who I myself have endorsed twice because she has had the good fortune to run two races against certifiable nutcases. A sane opponent might actually be able to beat her, although not by running on this issue.
The other Queens Democrat is more problematic. Joe Addabbo apparently got mucho money and troops from the LGTB community in exchange for promises unkept. He would seem a good target for a lesson in dancing’ with those who brung ya.
But to what end?
The loss of Addabbo’s vote is surely as much a result of November’s elections as was the loss of the Republicans. Addabbo’s handpicked candidate for his old City Council seat, Frank Gulluscio got his brains bashed in by an attractive young conservative Republican named Eric Ulrich who is now aching to run against Addabbo. In that context, it should be noted that Gulluscio complained loudly after the election about efforts on behalf of his opponent by the Roman Catholic Church.
Of further concern is that Ulrich won his victory in the most Democratic part of Addabbo’s district. If he beats Addabbo, he will surely be an unwinnable vote on the issue of marital equality. At least Addabbo helps keep in office a majority which will permit the issue to come to the floor.
Further, if there is a constituency in this district for social liberalism, even in a Democratic primary, it is not readily apparent. There may be voters in this area who favor same-sex marriage, but there are few who are likely willing to oust a Democratic incumbent in a primary on that basis, and Addabbo’s record will probably not afford a Democratic primary challenger any other useful issue.
Then there is Darren Aubertine. Earlier this year, I was contacted by a friend urging me to contact Aubertine on this issue.
What a waste of time!
Aubertine is a Catholic of such conviction that he is pro-life and anti-capital punishment, even though it would be his political advantage to be the other way around on both issues.
He will never compromise on anything he sees as a moral issue.
But he is also the only Democrat who could possibly win this seat.
Unlike in Queens though, a socially liberal Republican was once a possible alternative.
In fact, the good news is that the most attractive possible Republican Senate candidate in Aubertine’s district had actually voted in favor of same sex marriage.
The bad news is that her name is Dede Scozzafava.
As such, trying to defeat Aubertine is surely a pointless endeavor. Nothing better can possibly come of it.
Trying to defeat Ruben Diaz is surely not pointless, but it may be hopeless. Pedro Espada could not do it as the incumbent, even though his campaign was underwritten and staffed by Joe Bruno supplementing Espada’s own army of health care employees and Fred Newman affiliated zombies and pods.
Emotionally, I hope Ruben gets a primary, but tactically, it is bad targeting. Those looking to switch a vote on same-sex marriage would be better off going after Huntley, while those looking to punish an amigo are probably better off going after Espada (who, incidentally, voted right on this issue).
Perhaps Bill Stachowski is a good target. He nearly blew a fairly safe seat in a good Democratic year, and thanks to the amigos, his promised chairmanship of Finance has become one more broken promise. A stronger Democrat could probably be found, though using same-sex marriage as an issue here would probably not yield one many votes. And a Republican win here is not out of the question.
Finally, there is Carl Kruger. Those who’ve read me over the years know my attitude concerning Kruger is one best described as obsessive hatred. Though Kruger’s district is overwhelmingly Democratic in enrollment, I doubt that Obama even carried it (I’ve not done the math, but if one looks at last year’s election results, mapped ED by ED, it is hard to come to any other conclusion).
Kruger has so much money banked and is so strong in his district, he could have taken this vote. Moreover, no one who knows Kruger believes he has any moral objection to same sex marriage (anyone who knows Kruger would find it hard to believe he even understand what a moral objection is, no matter what the topic).
The WFP could make someone a formidable challenger, but they are far more concerned with targeting people like Marty Connor and John Sabini (who both supported their positions about 100% of the time) than they are in taking on real reactionaries. Further, the unions owe Kruger large for his successful efforts to keep the state budget unbalanced, and as City Hall News has shown this week, when it comes to determining which candidates are supported, WFP is nothing but a coalition of unions wrapped in “progressive” window dressing as thin as courthouse toilet paper.
So, three or maybe four of these Democrats are good targets at best.
But there were thirty Republican “no” votes here. Some of them, like Jim Alessi and Joe Robach, both of Rochester, in Districts with significant LGTB constituencies, and other bases for a Democratic victory.
Others are vulnerable as well.
So, yeah, I’m not opposed to some primary challenges (though going after Addabbo seems the height of stupidity).
But let’s not lose sight of the more tempting targets here.
Let’s give Jim Alessi a real reason to tremble.
We owe it to George Michaels.
Comments:
ROSCOE CONWAY: (George Michaels)
Ever see the picture of Michaels at his desk immediately after casting the vote?
Heartbreaking.
Am I wrong in recalling that the winner of that 1970 Democratic primary was John Rossi, later of the Speaker's Counsel's Office?