Wedding Crasher
Back and Forth: Assembly Member Jack Quinn
Fri, 22 May 2009 12:58:00
Assembly Member Jack Quinn (R-Erie) kicked off the debate over same-sex marriage earlier this month by peppering the bill’s sponsor, Assembly Member Danny O’Donnell (D-Manhattan), with questions about whether the bill would force public accommodations with a religious focus, like the Knights of Columbus, to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Quinn says he took a lead role in opposing the bill, which passed the Assembly for the third time, not because he opposes marriage equality necessarily, but out of party duty as the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.
Quinn talks about his friendship with O’Donnell, his personal feelings on the issue and how the bill will fare in the Senate, should it come up for a vote.
What follows is an edited tran scri pt.
The Capitol: Why lead the opposition to the bill legalizing same-sex marriage?
Jack Quinn: I think more so from my end, it’s more of a procedural issue. As ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, that’s my role that I play. That’s where the bill came out of. I want to, and at least try to, argue the merits of the bill from a legal perspective as a lawyer, and just kind of get out there before we get more into the issues of personally why people were for or against this. Let’s lay out what this bill does, issues on both sides of it, and just kind of where we’re at.
TC: Considering there are so many personal issues wrapped up in this bill, was it difficult to lead the opposition?
JQ: Without a doubt. I consider Danny [O’Donnell] to be a friend. The hardest part about it is, you know this issue is one of the few issues we deal with that is so personal. Not a question of politics, not a question of conservative, independent, liberal. You just go about it by looking at the bill, discussing it, what it does, what it doesn’t do, the impact it could have on people in the future, what impact it could have on businesses in the future. I went first, and then [Assembly Member Michael Fitzpatrick (R-Suffolk)] went second. I’m hopeful that we can look at it from that perspective. And in fact, to be honest with you, I didn’t listen to all of the debate. After he and I went, there weren’t many questions. From that, it was just people giving their opinion one way or the other. And that’s the thing, there’s really not a whole heck of a lot of questions you can ask. Either you’re on one side or another on this issue.
TC: This is the second time the bill has passed the Assembly. Is everyone just beating their heads against the wall on this issue?
JQ: I think it’s an important issue. And because people feel so strongly about one side or another, to simply say we’re not going to debate it I think is a disservice to our constituents and a disservice to the people who feel strongly about the issue. And a disservice to Mr. O’Donnell, who I said is a friend of mine, and for whom, I think, this is a very emotional and personal issue. He deserves the right, just like every other member of that chamber whom this effects personally, to debate the issue and tell us why it’s important for them that it passes, or in some cases does not pass.
TC: Why is there not as organized an opposition in the Senate as there is in the Assembly?
JQ: I think it would be more organized if they knew. I don’t think anybody knows which way the vote is going to go. If they had an idea that it was going to pass or it was going to be very close, or that it was going to come up for a vote, that it would be more organized one way or another. We’re only organized because we know we’re going to lose the vote. Let’s be honest: it’s organized in the respect that Brian Kolb [(R-Onondaga/Ontario/Seneca/Cortland/Cayuga)], our new leader, never said, “You all have to vote one way or the other.” The only thing we’ve said in conference is to say, “Hey, this is personal for all of you, we know how some of you are going to vote or not going to vote. Therefore vote your conscience.” They knew I was going to speak out and Fitzpatrick was going to speak out because we went to our leadership and said, “We’re going to start the questions.” From there on out, it was kind of just a free-for-all. I think [Senate Minority Leader] Dean [Skelos (R-Nassau)] would take a little more interest in that if they knew it was coming to a vote.
TC: Are you under intense lobbying pressure at all from pro-marriage equality groups?
JQ: I gotta tell you, on a personal level, I’m not as cut-and-dry on this issue as you may think. It’s a very tough vote for me, first of all as a lawyer and second of all as a younger legislator. I’ve been here for five years but am only 31 years old. This is an issue that I have really gone over in my head several times. I am by no means the most vocal opponent to this in the Assembly, by any stretch of the imagination. I look at it simply as the ranker of the Judiciary Committee—this is my job. Just like when we do bills on justice courts that Mr. O’Donnell is sponsoring as well. That’s a bill that I’m going to get up and argue against. That’s a bill that affects me much more so as an upstate New Yorker, but that’s my duty—to bring that discussion to the floor as the ranker. And because of that, that’s always been my role. It’s never so much been like, “Hey, I’m so against this and I want to speak against it.” It’s more a question of, “Jack Quinn, ranker, I should represent my party in the minority here, or the people who are on the same side of this issue.”
TC: Do you see this as a civil rights issue? As a way to provide a group of people with a right that has been denied them so far?
JQ: I think it’s a very big part of it. I think Mr. O’Donnell, as sponsor of this bill, is simply saying that we should have the right to be married like everybody else does. I think that one of the main issues that we really spoke about on the floor is an area that will continue to be looked at, and will continue to be an area, which is the reason I voted no at the end of the day, is that on the issue of public accommodation, because of the fact that other states like Vermont have created an opt-out for public accommodation. That’s where it gets a little dicey. To say a group like the Knights of Columbus may be sued because of the fact that they own a hall and don’t want to hold a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple—that’s where it gets a little bit tough. And I understand what Danny’s saying, which is, “Discrimination is discrimination.” Public accommodation law is what it is. The human rights law of New York State is what it is. You can’t pick and choose who you’re going to support and who you’re going to protect. He’s right. But when you get away from talking about what the bill does, that’s one area where some people have a little bit of a problem right now. To be honest, it may be just a question of the fact that it’s different than what we have now. That may be it. I’m not sure. But because a state like Vermont did it, and did create that opt-out, I think that’s where some people are questioning it.
TC: Do you think civil unions and commitment ceremonies are another case of gay and lesbian couples being asked to accept a “separate but equal” status in society?
JQ: Yes. At least from my perspective, to say you’re going to have a civil union is simply separate but equal. There’s no way around that, for god’s sakes. I think it’s actually kind of, to a degree, in some cases considered to be even more disrespectful than not having it. You’re basically saying to people, “You can have as close to what marriage is, but we’re not going to hold you to the same level.” I think that’s offensive.
TC: If the measure does pass the Senate, would you attend Danny O’Donnell’s wedding?
JQ: Without a doubt. I would without a problem. I would definitely go. And that’s what I think should not be lost. Danny and I talked, after the fact, we talked several times. He and I have a pretty good relationship, I think. And he understands where I’m coming from, which is that I’m taking on a role that, to be honest with you, I must have had 30 people say to me, “Oh my god, you really want to do this?” It’s not the question of do you want to do this. It’s the question of we owe it to ourselves to do it.
Quinn talks about his friendship with O’Donnell, his personal feelings on the issue and how the bill will fare in the Senate, should it come up for a vote.
What follows is an edited tran scri pt.
The Capitol: Why lead the opposition to the bill legalizing same-sex marriage?
Jack Quinn: I think more so from my end, it’s more of a procedural issue. As ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, that’s my role that I play. That’s where the bill came out of. I want to, and at least try to, argue the merits of the bill from a legal perspective as a lawyer, and just kind of get out there before we get more into the issues of personally why people were for or against this. Let’s lay out what this bill does, issues on both sides of it, and just kind of where we’re at.
TC: Considering there are so many personal issues wrapped up in this bill, was it difficult to lead the opposition?
JQ: Without a doubt. I consider Danny [O’Donnell] to be a friend. The hardest part about it is, you know this issue is one of the few issues we deal with that is so personal. Not a question of politics, not a question of conservative, independent, liberal. You just go about it by looking at the bill, discussing it, what it does, what it doesn’t do, the impact it could have on people in the future, what impact it could have on businesses in the future. I went first, and then [Assembly Member Michael Fitzpatrick (R-Suffolk)] went second. I’m hopeful that we can look at it from that perspective. And in fact, to be honest with you, I didn’t listen to all of the debate. After he and I went, there weren’t many questions. From that, it was just people giving their opinion one way or the other. And that’s the thing, there’s really not a whole heck of a lot of questions you can ask. Either you’re on one side or another on this issue.
TC: This is the second time the bill has passed the Assembly. Is everyone just beating their heads against the wall on this issue?
JQ: I think it’s an important issue. And because people feel so strongly about one side or another, to simply say we’re not going to debate it I think is a disservice to our constituents and a disservice to the people who feel strongly about the issue. And a disservice to Mr. O’Donnell, who I said is a friend of mine, and for whom, I think, this is a very emotional and personal issue. He deserves the right, just like every other member of that chamber whom this effects personally, to debate the issue and tell us why it’s important for them that it passes, or in some cases does not pass.
TC: Why is there not as organized an opposition in the Senate as there is in the Assembly?
JQ: I think it would be more organized if they knew. I don’t think anybody knows which way the vote is going to go. If they had an idea that it was going to pass or it was going to be very close, or that it was going to come up for a vote, that it would be more organized one way or another. We’re only organized because we know we’re going to lose the vote. Let’s be honest: it’s organized in the respect that Brian Kolb [(R-Onondaga/Ontario/Seneca/Cortland/Cayuga)], our new leader, never said, “You all have to vote one way or the other.” The only thing we’ve said in conference is to say, “Hey, this is personal for all of you, we know how some of you are going to vote or not going to vote. Therefore vote your conscience.” They knew I was going to speak out and Fitzpatrick was going to speak out because we went to our leadership and said, “We’re going to start the questions.” From there on out, it was kind of just a free-for-all. I think [Senate Minority Leader] Dean [Skelos (R-Nassau)] would take a little more interest in that if they knew it was coming to a vote.
TC: Are you under intense lobbying pressure at all from pro-marriage equality groups?
JQ: I gotta tell you, on a personal level, I’m not as cut-and-dry on this issue as you may think. It’s a very tough vote for me, first of all as a lawyer and second of all as a younger legislator. I’ve been here for five years but am only 31 years old. This is an issue that I have really gone over in my head several times. I am by no means the most vocal opponent to this in the Assembly, by any stretch of the imagination. I look at it simply as the ranker of the Judiciary Committee—this is my job. Just like when we do bills on justice courts that Mr. O’Donnell is sponsoring as well. That’s a bill that I’m going to get up and argue against. That’s a bill that affects me much more so as an upstate New Yorker, but that’s my duty—to bring that discussion to the floor as the ranker. And because of that, that’s always been my role. It’s never so much been like, “Hey, I’m so against this and I want to speak against it.” It’s more a question of, “Jack Quinn, ranker, I should represent my party in the minority here, or the people who are on the same side of this issue.”
TC: Do you see this as a civil rights issue? As a way to provide a group of people with a right that has been denied them so far?
JQ: I think it’s a very big part of it. I think Mr. O’Donnell, as sponsor of this bill, is simply saying that we should have the right to be married like everybody else does. I think that one of the main issues that we really spoke about on the floor is an area that will continue to be looked at, and will continue to be an area, which is the reason I voted no at the end of the day, is that on the issue of public accommodation, because of the fact that other states like Vermont have created an opt-out for public accommodation. That’s where it gets a little dicey. To say a group like the Knights of Columbus may be sued because of the fact that they own a hall and don’t want to hold a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple—that’s where it gets a little bit tough. And I understand what Danny’s saying, which is, “Discrimination is discrimination.” Public accommodation law is what it is. The human rights law of New York State is what it is. You can’t pick and choose who you’re going to support and who you’re going to protect. He’s right. But when you get away from talking about what the bill does, that’s one area where some people have a little bit of a problem right now. To be honest, it may be just a question of the fact that it’s different than what we have now. That may be it. I’m not sure. But because a state like Vermont did it, and did create that opt-out, I think that’s where some people are questioning it.
TC: Do you think civil unions and commitment ceremonies are another case of gay and lesbian couples being asked to accept a “separate but equal” status in society?
JQ: Yes. At least from my perspective, to say you’re going to have a civil union is simply separate but equal. There’s no way around that, for god’s sakes. I think it’s actually kind of, to a degree, in some cases considered to be even more disrespectful than not having it. You’re basically saying to people, “You can have as close to what marriage is, but we’re not going to hold you to the same level.” I think that’s offensive.
TC: If the measure does pass the Senate, would you attend Danny O’Donnell’s wedding?
JQ: Without a doubt. I would without a problem. I would definitely go. And that’s what I think should not be lost. Danny and I talked, after the fact, we talked several times. He and I have a pretty good relationship, I think. And he understands where I’m coming from, which is that I’m taking on a role that, to be honest with you, I must have had 30 people say to me, “Oh my god, you really want to do this?” It’s not the question of do you want to do this. It’s the question of we owe it to ourselves to do it.
