New York Conservatives Institute Marriage Equality Test- No Endorsement If One Votes For Equality

11/17/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
On the heels of the New York 23 vote, and the pushing out of Dierdre Scozzafava, it should not be surprising that the Conservative Party is making marriage a litmus test even as Doug Hoffman rescinds his concession at the urging of his guru Glen Beck. This, of course, despite the fact that it is next to impossible for Mr. Hoffman to win with roughly one in five absentee votes breaking in Scozzafava’s favor and the absentee ballots from Owen’s strongholds having yet to be counted.

The Conservative Party in New York is stating that they will withhold their endorsement of any Senator who votes for marriage equality. Conservative Party chairman Michael Long said “That happens to be one of the lines in the sand. As far as I’m concerned, in the areas where I have a say — and I don’t have a say in every district — one need not apply if they vote in favor of the issue.”

The question, of course, is how much influence the Conservative Party holds at this point in time. While it may be easy to say that the Conservative Party’s fortunes have risen in the wake of the Doug Hoffman loss, it may also find that they have now been saddled with the fortunes of the Tea Party and Sarah Palin faction of the Republican Party. This could turn off or offend people who feel that that wing of the Republican Party are too loony to vote with.

The vote in New York 23 is not as much of a victory as the Conservative Party or the Tea Party Wing would like to believe. Doug Hoffman still lost, and had Scozzafava pulled out of the race early enough to pull her name off the ballot, it is still likely that Doug Hoffman would have lost. Those who voted for Scozzafava did so because they did not like either of the two candidates, not because they supported her. Polling indicated that that group would have been more likely to break for Owens than Hoffman had Scozzafava not been in the race.

The other problem facing the Conservative Party is the reality that they may be facing a lot of state senators who realize that winning in 2010 is almost impossible at this point and who are going to break towards marriage equality rather than away from it. Many of those who are already in danger via the Conservative Party’s threat to withhold their endorsement are already politicians who have stated that they will not vote for marriage equality anyway. Thus, this may not be the level of threat that it appears.

The other problem is money. Doug Hoffman got as many votes as he did because the Club for Growth and other such outside groups poured a great deal of money into the race. That kind of money, from groups which view local concerns as being parochial, that will not really be there for the Conservative Party in the upcoming state elections.

Furthermore, a lot also will depend upon the kinds of resources that the LGBT Advocacy groups can muster to help defend those at risk politicians. Vermont Freedom To Marry is already gearing up for 2010 in order to defend those senators who voted for marriage equality in that state.

What Long has done is less put his party into a situation where he can count on his party’s fortunes rising, but rather simply made the situation in New York next year extremely chaotic. What he could end up doing is creating a situation in these individual districts where the Republican Moderates in the same vein as Dierdre Scozzafava vote for the Democratic candidate who does not have the backing of the Conservative Party instead of voting for the person that Long endorses.

The Advocate
Albany Times Union