By Anthony Rifilato
The registry was highly touted by Democrats as entitling couples of both sexes to hospital visitation rights and the authority to make funeral arrangements. The law also would have allowed couples to qualify for health insurance from employers who recognize such partnerships.
The measure was defeated on April 24 when nine Republicans voted against the measure and one Democrat, Roger Corbin, abstained. And to the chagrin of Democratic leaders, Legislator Joe Scannell, a Democrat of Baldwin, voted no.
Scannell said that after hearing testimony from advocates and opponents of the bill, he voted against it because he felt it was not substantive and not in the best interests of his district, which includes heavily Catholic Rockville Centre.
"As a Catholic, I didn't feel comfortable with the bill, and neither did my district," Scannell said. "I know my district, and I know what my district feels. And knowing how many Catholics there are in Rockville Centre, this isn't something they would respect."
Scannell also said he ultimately voted against the registry because rights such as hospital visits and funeral arrangements are already available under New York state law. "There was no clear and convincing argument that this would give additional benefits to people," he said. "You already have the same rights if you have a will. Through a power of attorney, you can get these rights. There are other legal avenues that already exist for people. Most people have a lot of legal documentation to prove to hospitals that they are partners now."
Proponents of the registry said the law was aimed at easing the burden for couples who have to sift through numerous documents and paperwork to prove their relationships. "Domestic partner registries ease the difficulties that same-sex couples can face when having to prove their relationship by providing only one piece of paper," said Ross Levi, director of public policy for the Empire State Pride Agenda. "The last thing somebody wants to do when their partner has been rushed to the emergency room is to have to find a lease with both your names on it, or three pieces of paper to show that they're actually a couple."
Levi said that a recent poll conducted by the Empire State Pride Agenda found that three-quarters of Nassau County voters supported a domestic partner registry, and he was stunned that the measure, which already exists in Westchester and Suffolk counties, was voted down. "It's baffling why a Democrat would vote to discriminate against same-sex couples and their children," Levi said. "This is something that most Nassau County residents don't have a problem with."
But Paul Kosowski, who heads the Nassau County Civic Association, which opposed the law, said he believes Democratic lawmakers are using the registry to promote gay marriage and that it goes against traditional values. "They are trying to work with these groups to bring this message to the forefront and send a message to Albany that it's acceptable to pass legislation providing marital benefits to gay couples, regardless of what you call it," Kosowski said. "They say it's not a big deal and just paperwork, but the problem is that [the registry] redefines relationships."
Legislator Kevan Abrahams (D-Hempstead) disagreed with those who thought promoting gay marriage was an underlying issue among lawmakers.
"Those who want to talk about marriage and civil unions, this is not what [a domestic partner registry] is about," said Abrahams. "Those who want to say that this is gay marriage are completely wrong and being reckless in their comments."
Since March, Democrats have lauded the registry as creating rights for opposite-sex as well as same-sex couples, and it had the backing of numerous gay rights groups as well as local organizations like the Long Island Crisis Center.
Democratic legislators and others said they were shocked by Scannell's vote, since, initially, it seemed that he was in favor of the legislation. "I was surprised and disappointed that it was voted down," said Legislator Jeff Toback (D-Oceanside).
When asked if Scannell's decision would affect the chemistry within the 10-member Democratic majority, Toback said, "I would imagine that on some levels, it has to."
Abrahams said he was also taken aback by Scannell's vote. "We all agreed that once we spoke, we would table the item," Abrahams said, explaining that there was an agreement not to take a vote on the registry. "I assumed we were all on board with tabling it, and we get out there and he votes for not tabling it. I like Joe -- he's a friend -- so from that standpoint I haven't lost respect for him. But at the same time, I was disappointed that he didn't say something in the caucus room that he wasn't going to support it."
Scannell said he pushed for the vote on April 24 after hearing testimony from both advocates and opponents of the law.
"I didn't agree to the tabling and I thought it should come to a vote," said Scannell. "We had heard all of the testimony."
He also said that his position on the issue should not have been surprising, and that he voiced his concerns to Presiding Officer Judy Jacobs and others prior to the hearing.
"It's disappointing that these guys didn't know that I had some concerns," Scannell said. "I've stood up to my party in the past when I felt something was not right for my district. If my colleagues' feelings are hurt, they'll have to get over it. My responsibility is to the people who elected me."
Other legislators were ambivalent about the issue. Corbin, a Catholic, abstained, saying that church officials in his district were against the registry. And on Sunday, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, who did not voice his support for the registry when it was announced, said he was in favor of the registry and called on lawmakers to bring the measure up for a vote.
Denise Ford (R-Long Beach) voted against the registry, but said she had some reservations about her vote and still wants to look into the registry's viability after hearing from constituents who support domestic partnership. "I'm not entirely comfortable with my vote," said Ford. "I see that this is actually a harmless bill, and I want to look into this further."
Ford said she felt that not enough time was allotted for legislators to study the issue, a big reason why she voted against it. "We didn't hear from a lot of different parties, and that's what threw me for a loop," she said. "Sometimes these votes are very difficult to make."
Comments about this story? Baldwineditor@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext. 207.
