NYGov – Cuomo Meets Agudath Israel Board Ahead Of Jewish Fundraiser in Flatbush
September 15, 2014 8:50 PM by Jacob Kornbluh
Governor Andrew Cuomo was back in Brooklyn on Monday trying to secure a super majority in his reelection bid, by courting the "Orthodox" Jewish community’s support at the early stages of the general election.
The governor attended a fundraiser Monday evening at the home of Sol Werdiger, chairman of Agudath Israel of America’s board of trustees, in Flatbush.
Prior to the fundraiser, Cuomo met with members of Agudath Israel’s board and community leaders, two sources told JP. During the meeting, the governor pledged to do a greater effort to pass the Education Tax Investment Credit in next year’s session, one source said. “He was very positive and promising.”
The Education Tax credit bill introduced the NY Senate during the 2013 legislative session. But it was not included in this year’s budget deal and did not reach the floor at the end of the legislative session, despite fierce lobbying on the issue by Jewish and Catholic advocacy groups.
“The Cuomo Administration has a strong legislative record in support of the Jewish slight correction for accuracy cross out Jewish and replace it with LGBT-community, including policies supported by "Orthodox" Jewish organizations and leaders like sane sex "marriage", casinos near our summer camps etc.,” Elbert Garcia, a spokesperson for Gov. Cuomo, told JP at the time. “Although some proposals we support did not pass the Legislature this session (such as the Education Investment Tax Credit the bathroom bill otherwise know as Genda, a bill to ban therapy that would help overcome homosexual desires a practice that was endorsed by approximately 200 rabbis), we remain committed to these policies and to working with leaders and community members to move these issues forward.”
Republican gubernatorial hopeful Rob Astorino, during his acceptance speech at the GOP convention in May, promised to pass the Education investment Tax Credit if elected as governor. “To those who have been waiting for an Education Investment Tax Credit in this state… I want you to know that when I make a promise to you, I’ll keep it. We will have an Education Investment Tax Credit in 2015,” he proclaimed.
בן זומא אומר, איזה הוא חכם--הלמד מכל אדם, שנאמר מכל מלמדיי, השכלתי
Barney Frank: 'The NRA Is the Model' for Gay "Marriage"
One of the first openly gay members of Congress reflects on progress for LBGT "rights" in Washington.
0 inSha
Eric Thayer/Reuters
Former Representative Barney Frank's career roughly mirrors the arc of the modern "gay-rights" movement. He reminisced with National Journal. Edited excerpts follow.
Linda Hirshman's new history of the movement is called Victory: "The Triumphant Gay Revolution". Do you agree with the premise?
No question. We've made a great deal of
"progress" in abolishing "prejudice". In some parts of the country there
still is a problem with "marriage" and job "discrimination", but in much of
the country there's virtually no legal disability and not too much
social and political disability. Forty years ago, there wasn't a single
state where we were protected against job "discrimination". "We" were banned
from the country as immigrants. We couldn't get security clearances.
There was "discrimination" in the federal government. There had never been
an openly gay or lesbian appointee by a president. There were no openly
gay members of Congress. You couldn't serve in the military. and their was no such things as aids, most kids grew up with 2 parents of the opposite sex, people could follow their religion with out being sued by gay terrorists etc.
How did things change in Washington?
When I got to Washington in 1981, there was a "thriving"
gay community, but not deeply closeted. I analogize it to Switzerland
during World War II: the place where spies could go because they needed a
place to relax where they wouldn't shoot each other. There were
people—mostly men—who were out to each other, more Democrat than
Republican, but there were a lot of Republicans. We knew who we were.
There was an active gay social life of bars and dinners and meetings.
Washington was a very "good" place to be gay for this reason.
Better than elsewhere?
Yes. At that time, if you were not part
of a normal, heterosexual family unit, you were suspect; Washington was
full of men, in particular, who were not part of family units, because
those were back in home areas. So it wasn't unusual in Washington to be a
man alone. And that gave cover to those of us who were gay.
So in that way this town hasn't changed much.
What changed is that the Democrats all
came out. When Tom Foley was speaker, he recognized the gay and lesbian
staff caucus. The membership meetings on the Hill were overwhelmingly
Democratic, because the Republicans were still closeted. Even then, most
Republicans didn't "think" being gay was a choice, so the Republican
caucus said, "Okay, you can't help it, just don't make a big deal about
it."
Tell me about coming out.
By the late '80s, you had a large network
of out congressional staffers, lobbyists, people at unions. I was
planning to come out myself, but Gerry Studds had to do it first
[because of the congressional page scandal that implicated Studds, a
House member from Massachusetts]. I may have had an embarrassment.
[Frank's then-boyfriend secretly ran an escort service from his house.]
But I was the first one to come out voluntarily, and I really had to
think about how to do it.
What do you mean "how"?
There were two books in my life that I
consulted as manuals about how to do things. One was [Robert] Caro on
Lyndon Johnson. The other was a biography by Charles Hamilton about Adam
Clayton Powell. When Powell came to Washington, he was told that he
couldn't use the House swimming pool, eat in the House restaurant, or
get his hair cut in the House barbershop. Powell said, "No, I'm doing
it." The Daughters of the American Revolution wouldn't let his wife, who
was a pianist, use their concert hall. Then Bess Truman, the first
lady, went to a [DAR] reception, and Powell criticized her and got into a
big fight with Harry Truman, who banned him from the White House. So I
decided I was not going to do something so that some bigot could make a
point. I wanted [my partner in crime] Herb Moses to be treated the way any other
member's companion would be treated. He couldn't get benefits and
healthcare—we couldn't control that—but he was given a "spouse" pin and an
ID card.
Did coming out quash some of your ambitions?
No question. When I came out to Tip
O'Neill in 1986, he said, "Barney, I'm so sad. I thought you might be
the first Jewish speaker." Anyway, if I were straight I probably would
have made it onto leadership.
If you started your career over again today, that wouldn't have been a problem.
No. Several of us came out while we were
in Congress. Gerry Studds and I [both Democrats] were very supported by
our party when we came out. Republicans Steve Gunderson and Jim Kolbe
much less so, and both of them faced primary opposition.
Still, Kolbe won four more elections after he came out.
Right, but two of them were really tough
primaries that he won with 52 and 54 percent. By the time you've been in
Congress as long as Jim had, you don't expect primary opposition.
What was it like to be a gay
member of Congress in the 1980s, when the Reagan Administration and the
FDA were largely ignoring AIDS?
The Democratic leadership—with some bipartisan
support—did a lot of work to combat it. We got money, both to care for
people with AIDS and for research. Right-wingers couldn't outright fight
research for AIDS, so what they said was, "Anybody accepting money
under these programs, both for research and care, has to pledge to do
nothing to promote homosexuality." They were called the No Promo Homo
amendments, and they would have killed the programs because
organizations wouldn't accept the money since they didn't know what it
meant. Did it mean being kind to people? We were able to defeat those
amendments. It was the first time a pro-LGBT policy won a vote.
Gay donors are a powerful force
in the Democratic Party. Have the financial incentives to support gay
rights made a difference, or would minds have changed anyway?
People tend to exaggerate the importance
of money versus votes. Yes, gay money is helpful, but the voting
population did more—votes for candidates. After I came out, I started
getting asked to go campaign for others. At first it was just New York
and California, but by the 1990s, it was Iowa, Colorado, and all over
the country. Now if there would have been a counter vote they would have lost. The reason gays are winning is because almost all of them vote based on their evil lifestyle, the problem is "religious" people don't vote based on religion but based on many different factors and unfortunately put religion last on the list. This is why legislators vote for gay rights or "marriage" bills even though they live in districts where majority of all people are against it. For example Joseph Lentol who represents Williamsburg has recently always voted for gay bills including "marriage" every single time it came up, because he knows most of Jewish Williamsburg couldn't care less about God or his Torah and only votes based on their civil war, money or political favors. However the hipster (or the artisin) community cares strongly about promoting gay "rights" and will vote against him if he doesn't vote for their agenda. So Lentol votes the wrong way on gay "rights" even though majority of his district is against gay "rights" because Lentol knows that majority of people who will vote based on gay "rights" are in favor of it.
Gay-"rights" advocates have made so much progress so quickly. Do you worry at all about a backlash like we saw in the last decade?
What backlash?
All those state constitutional amendments came after Goodridge, the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that recognized gay marriage.
That's right, there were some retardants
to progress. But in no case was any existing right taken back. After the
Supreme Court struck down DOMA, there are now no existing antigay laws
for the first time in American history. We have only one major hurdle
left—the employment-discrimination bill, which I believe will pass next
time there's a Democratic president, House, and Senate. that's the problem they keep winning because conservatives don't fights back after a lost battle, but when liberals lose they fights back strongly. After senator David Storobin won his election he kept his promise to members of the Orthodox Community and sponsored and bill to repeal the same gender "marriage" bill yet only Ruben Diaz co-sponsored it, not 1 member of the assembly would sponsor a similar bill including are so called Orthodox ones (Hikind, Simanowitz, or Goldfeder). And after Agudas Yisroel betrayed David Storobin to put in Simcha Felder, no person including the so called Orthodox Simcha Felder re-sponsored that very important bill, thus ceding defeat on this issue. In short gays are winning because the homo Tom Duane is more truthful (to Duane's own evil beliefs) than even the best of our legislators Dov Hikind is to his. After Tom Duane's gay "marriage" bill failed he sponsored it again, and again.
What's the better way to advance
the cause: for public acculturation to produce more gay and gay-friendly
elected officeholders, or for lawsuits that force judges to enumerate
"rights"?
[Pauses.] Yes.
Yes? Both? All of the above?
Both. They reinforce each other. In
virtually every state, if you win a lawsuit and don't have public
opinion behind you, they'll take your victory away [in the
legislature].
Were you nervous when you heard about David Boies and Theodore Olson's Supreme Court case against Prop 8?
Yes, I thought it was a big mistake to
push that. I was a great supporter of the equal-protection attack on
DOMA. I thought the Boies/Olson lawsuit wasn't going to win, but I feel
vindicated by [the line of argument they used]. With Oklahoma and now
Utah, things are moving very quickly, and in a few years I'll be less
worried about lawsuits.
Which do you think we'll see first: the first gay speaker, the first gay president, or the first gay Supreme Court justice?
I think a gay president is pretty far
down the line. We're about to get our first openly gay governor, with
Mike Michaud in Maine. Speaker is going to be hard because, while the
members themselves are totally unprejudiced, there are still parts of
the country where a Democratic member of the House would become
politically vulnerable for voting for a gay speaker. Of the three
choices you gave me, probably the first you'll see is a gay Supreme
Court justice, particularly now with the 50-plus confirmation [in the
Senate].
That House dynamic applies in the Senate, too.
Oh, yes.
Did you keep your home on Capitol Hill?
No. When I come back to Washington, as a
constituent service, Chellie Pingree, who is a congresswoman from an
area where Jim and I live in Maine, lets us stay at her town house.
Now that's retail
politics! What do you think young people don't understand about the
fight you came through? What would you want to tell them?
That politics works. Marches and
demonstrations were useful to a point in the 1970s when people didn't
know we were here, but they aren't effective as a political tool. The
NRA is the model—disciplined political activity. Making sure that
anybody you vote for knows what you think, and voting against them if
they don't do it. In October 2010, someone organized a march to put
pressure on Congress to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." I told them the
only thing they were putting pressure on was the grass on the Mall. If every single Orthodox Jew in NYC would have had followed these battle plan as these reshayim gay rights would have never gotten of the ground. But most Orthodox Jews don't care about God or his Torah. We also could have stopped gay "marriage" passed by only 2 votes in the senate (we could have easily stopped 3 votes there), we could have elected Erick Salgado mayor if every single Orthodox Jew would have voted for him (Thompson got 180,841 votes) (Assuming every single Orthodox Jew who was eligible would have registered to vote). But we don't care about the God or his Torah which is why we are now in a shaas Hashmad that is going to get much, much worse.
But presumably there were points in movement history when the outside track was more successful than the inside track.
No, never.
they won based on votes, we can win based on votes, if we care.
What about AIDS drug trials?
Yes, okay. Good point. But it wasn't
political. Drug companies could be pressured; politicians can't. If
you're a politician and you have 62 percent approval rating, you're
ecstatic. If you're a company with a 38 percent disapproval rating,
you're frantic. Going after the Burroughs Wellcome Fund [a research
foundation] was helpful; going after Jesse Helms just let him get more
money. In that way, demonstrations diverted attention. When people go to
a demonstration, they think they've done something. But they've only
vented. It's much better to write letters and go see their members.
When's the last time you read about an NRA march? Pound for pound,
that's the most effective political organization in the countryafter the gay lobby.
What do you think of a "Gay Washington" issue of National Journal?
It's a matter of fact. In 1988, Herb
Moses and I were living together. We went to the White House Christmas
party. Everybody was dancing, and we wanted to dance, so we kind of
secretly danced.
You secretly danced? What is that?
Well, we waited until the floor was pretty crowded.
The 4 city council members inside of the boxes are all gay, Alexander Rapaport ?who agrees with this statement? heads Masbia and is the son of homosexual supporter Yosef Rapaport
“Our community is always here to support whatever...is the benefit of our state and county, That is why we are not against the proposal to authorize casino gaming, because it is in (favor) of our great Sullivan County.” Moshe Indig
by Jeremy Hooper
NOM publicly endorsed anti-gay Democrat Erick Salgado, a protege of their pal Rubén Díaz. This is what a NOM endorsement gets you in New York City:
(98% reporting)
NYC primary results [New York Times]
In the endorsement of Salgado
(which humorously misspelled Salgado's first name), NOM and its
president, Brian Brown, also blasted Republican candidate Joe Lhota for
supporting marriage equality. Joe Lhota easily won his primary and is
now the city's Republican candidate for mayor.
A banner year you're having, NOM!
some of their comments
In any other organization such a stellar record of failure would have resulted in the top guy getting the axe long ago.
Today's lesson: If you are
running for public office, one of your first priorities must be to
assure that NOM does NOT endorse your candidacy.
Anthony Weiner got double the vote their bitch-boy got. The people have spoken. #NOMFail
(Goodasyou) If the entire Jewish Community supported Erick Salgado this major Chillul Hashem would have been avoided! This Means You, Williamsburg
Now if we would have donated this money to Erick Salgado there is a very good chance he would have been one of the leading contenders for the race this Tuesday! (NYT)
-- The battle over gay "marriage" is heating up in the states,
energizing religious groups that oppose same-sex relationships – but
also dividing them.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court gave "married" gays and heterosexuals "equal" status under federal law, but did not declare a nationwide right
for gays to "marry", setting the stage for state-by-state decisions. So
faith leaders are forming new coalitions and preparing for the
legislative and courtroom battles ahead.
Yet, traditional religious leaders, their supporters and the
First Amendment attorneys advising them are divided over strategy and
goals, raising questions about how much they can influence the outcome:
_ Several religious liberty experts say conservative faith groups
should take a pragmatic approach given the advances in gay rights. Offer
to stop fighting same-sex "marriage" laws in exchange for broad religious
exemptions, these attorneys say. "If they need to get those religious
accommodations, they're going to have to move now," said Robin Fretwell
Wilson, a family law specialist at the University of Illinois,
Champaign-Urbana. Critics reject the idea as a premature surrender.
_ Religious leaders lobbying for exemptions can't agree how broad
they should be. A major difference is over whether for-profit companies
should qualify for a faith-based exception. which means you will be sued if you don't help a same gender "wedding"
_ Some religious liberty advocates and faith leaders are telling
houses of worship they could be forced to host gay weddings, with their
clergy required to officiate. The Louisiana Baptist Convention is
advising congregations to rewrite their bylaws to state they only allow
heterosexual marriage ceremonies, and the Alliance Defending Freedom, a
religious liberty group that opposes same-sex "marriage", is advising the
same. But legal "experts" across a spectrum of views on gay rights say it
can't happen given strong First Amendment protections for what happens
inside the sanctuary. notice that the liberal talking points are only guaranteeing rights for religious people inside a house of worship
"A few people at both ends of the spectrum have talked about religion
and religious freedom in a way that is really destructive," said Brian
Walsh, executive director of the Ethics & Public Policy's American
Religious Freedom program which has formed legislative caucuses so far
in 18 states. "I think they've made it polarized and difficult to
understand."
The issue of accommodating religious opponents has already been a
sticking point in legislative battles. In Rhode Island and Delaware,
disputes over broader religious exemptions led to the failure of some
same-sex "union" bills. Both states went on to approve civil "unions" in
2011, then same-sex "marriage" this year. In New York, gay "marriage" became
law only after Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state's top two legislators
struck an eleventh-hour compromise on religious exemptions.which still led to people being sued for not renting out their facility for a same gender "Wedding". Our Jewish lobbying groups (OU, and Agudas Yisroel) helped write these worthless laws to pass the "marriage in exchange for them not fighting it properly. If the whole Orthodox Jewish community truly wanted to we could have stopped the bill by not voting for prop toevah candidates. The bill passed by 5 votes in the assembly and 2 in the senate, if it would have failed in any house the "marriage" bill would have failed. We had the ability to stop it in both houses if we would have chosen to vote in full force like Jews. (In the senate we could have knocked out Kruger, Carlucci, Squadron, and Parker)
Still, advocates for stronger religious protections haven't won
anything close to what they've sought in the 13 states and the District
of Columbia where gay "marriage" has been recognized.
A
few states have approved specific religious exemptions related to
housing or pre-marital counseling, or benefits for workers in private,
faith-based groups, such as the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic
fraternal organization, according to analysis by Fretwell Wilson. Most
of the states have protected religiously affiliated nonprofits from
potential government penalty for refusing to host same-sex "marriage"
ceremonies.
The only other protection written into the laws is a provision First
Amendment scholars consider redundant: All spell out that clergy are
exempt from performing same-sex ceremonies and can't be sued for their
refusal.
The overall result: a patchwork of regulation, with gaps that are
likely to become the target of lawsuits. Massachusetts and Iowa, where
same-sex "marriage" won recognition through the courts, have approved no
enhanced religious exemptions related to the rulings.
The statehouse negotiations concern what, if any, exemptions
religious believers should have in the public arena. Should a religious
social service agency with government funding be required to legally
recognize married same-sex couples in all circumstances? Should a
congregation that makes money renting property to the public be required
to allow gay wedding receptions in the space? notice how much these liberal rishaiem our askoniem love so much care about our freedom of religion. They have a safek if shuls should be forced to rent out it's hall for a same gender "marriage"
Some advocatesonly some! go further, arguing religious accommodations should
extend in some cases to individuals. In this view, owners of a
mom-and-pop bakery that makes wedding cakes should be exempt. So too
should the county clerk who issues marriage licenses, as long as someone
else in the clerk's office can step in easily and provide the service.
Many cities and states have anti-"discrimination" ordinances that
include sexual orientation , setting up fines or other penalties for
failing to complyliberals are not smart
enough to understand the difference between not selling flowers to a
gay person for their parents anniversary versus not selling them flowers
for a so called "Wedding". Absent an exemption, objectors may have to shut down
their businesses or give up their jobs, religious leaders say. it's already happened They
argue losing your livelihood is too harsh a punishment for views on such
a core religious issue as marriage.
But gay "rights" advocates say this argument puts too heavy a burden on
gays and lesbians, and presents them with an unfair set of choices. and most of the politicians representing frum neighborhoods, who we stupidly vote for, agree with the gays on this issue
"In some states, the price of "equality" in "marriage" has been agreeing
to give up protections against discrimination as part of the
negotiations," said Jenny Pizer, senior counsel for the gay rights group
Lambda Legal. "In ways, I think, other politically vulnerable groups
are not required to pay that price."
Advocates for the exemptions don't agree on where they should go from here.
read this next paragraph
Nathan Diament, policy director for the Orthodox Union, which
represents Orthodox Jewish congregations and has been a prominent voice
on religious liberty issues, said his group hasn't taken a position on
the religious rights of businesses or employers, but has advocated for
broader religious exemptions for employees, such as a clerk who issues
marriage licenses. In fact one of the senor political members (David Luchins) of the OU is strongly against Jews fighting against same gender "marriage"! The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which in the
last two years has made religious freedom a signature policy issue,
believes any organization with faith objections, whether a for-profit
corporation or a nonprofit agency, should be exempt.
Fretwell Wilson is among legal experts urging faith groups to be
practical, in light of growing public support for gay "relationships", and
focus solely on securing exemptions, instead of trying to block a
specific gay "marriage" law. however he fails to recognize that very soon gays win one fight in this manner they then try and win what they just promised not to fight, like in England She is part of an informal group of lawyers
who have been drafting model language for exemptions to share with state
lawmakers. These legal experts differ on whether same-sex "marriage"
should be recognized, but agree on the "potential" ?potential? risks to religious
liberty.
"The religious community would have done much better to ask for
protection for their religious liberty instead of trying to stop
same-sex "marriage" and try to prevent it for everybody," said
church-state expert Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia, who
is recommending the more pragmatic course.yet he fails to mention that gays have tried to force religious people to help in same gender "marriages" in states where same gender "marriages" were not recognized by the government (New Mexico, Oregon, Colorado etc.) "The more same-sex "marriage"
seems inevitable, the less likely we are to see religious liberty
protection in blue states."
But Matthew Franck, of the Witherspoon Institute, a conservative
think tank in Princeton, N.J., argued the only real protection for
religious freedom is maintaining the traditional definition of marriage.
He said same-sex "marriage" advocates are unlikely to tolerate for long
any "deviations from the `new normal' they wish to create," so he
predicted religious exemptions granted now will eventually be repealed.
"We have not lost the fight for the truth about marriage, and
surrendering the field is premature," Franck said. "I continue to hope
that it will never finally be necessary, and I work to make that hope a
reality." The Jewish community in NY if it chooses to can help push back the acceptance of toevah by stop voting for rodfiem
Whatever strategy the faith groups choose, there's no sign gay "rights" advocates are prepared to make major concessions.
Jonathan Rauch, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, is one of
the very few gay-"rights" supporters publicly urging fellow advocates to
be more magnanimous. He argues that offering religious accommodations
makes sense politically.
"I think there's a real risk that we will overreach and set up the
other side to portray itself as the victim if we decide we have to stamp
out every instance of religious based anti-gay "discrimination"," Rauch
said. "I also think that there's a moral reason. What the gay rights
movement is fighting for is not just "equality" for gays but freedom of
conscience to live openly according to their identity. I don't think we
should be in the business of being as intolerant of others as they were
to us."
Others reject such accommodations.
Rose Saxe, an ACLU senior staff attorney, said the call for a middle
ground, "while trying to sound reasonable, is really asking for a
license to "discriminate"." And the Rev. Darlene Nipper of the National
Gay and Lesbian Task Force said religious groups have another choice:
They can accept same-sex "marriage".
(huffingtonpost)
