The House voted 35-25 against it, despite massive lobbying by socially conservative groups. The vote ensures the measure will not appear on the ballot in 2010.

The proposed amendment would have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman and would block the state recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries where they are legal.

The measure needed a two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature and to then be signed by the governor in order to make it onto the ballot.

A similar proposed amendment passed the Senate two years ago but died in the House.

Wyoming already has a law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, but state Sen. Curt Meier (R), the amendment’s main sponsor, said the law is not sufficient. Meier said the law could be overturned by the courts.  A constitutional amendment would block that.

The measure’s House sponsor, Rep. Owen Petersen (R) made an impassioned speech during debate.

“It’s my opinion that voters should be allowed to express their opinion on this social issue, and not leave the matter to the courts or some other source,” he said.

But not all GOP members spoke in favor of the amendment. Rep. Pat Childers (R) said he has a lesbian daughter in a committed relationship.

“Folks, till my dying breath there isn’t anybody in this country who could say that she is a terrible person, or someone that needs to have their rights restricted,” Childers told the House.

Rep. Sue Wallis (R) called the amendment “state-sponsored bigotry.”

The national conservative group Focus on the Family Action mounted a telephone lobbying campaign throughout Wyoming in support of the gay-marriage ban.

Lobbying by out-of-state groups was cited as a key factor in the passing of a measure prohibiting gay marriage in California in November.

The Quinnipiac University poll finds that 55 percent of voters support the amendment, but that is short of the 60 percent needed to amend the constitution.

The latest poll shows a continuing drop in support for the amendment as opponents of the measure make voters aware of its broad implications.

Three months ago a similar Quinnipiac poll found support was at 58 percent of voters, and a Mason-Dixon poll in August found support at 57 percent.

The newest Quinnipiac poll of 1,427 Florida voters was taken last week and has a 2.6 percent margin of error.

The proposed amendment says, “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

Florida already has a law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples but supporters of the amendment say the law could be overturned in court.

The conservative Florida4Marriage attempted to have the proposed amendment placed on the 2006 ballot but fell short of the required number of signatures. Under Florida law the organization was allowed to continue to add names to the petition in a bid to get it on the 2008 ballot. It was certified in February to go on the November ballot.

Last year it was discovered that the state GOP was bankrolling the amendment effort.

An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times into funding for Florida4Marriage found that of the $193,000 that had been raised by the group $150,000 came from a single donor – the Florida Republican Party.

Opponents of the proposed amendment say in addition to barring gay marriage it would bar civil unions and would be used to deny partner benefits not only to same-sex couples but also to unmarried couples who live together.

That has spurred Florida Red and Blue, a non-partisan organization, to enter the fray on behalf of unmarried opposite-sex couples.

Last year in just 60 days, the group amassed more than $1 million to battle the proposed amendment.

The Mason-Dixon poll, taken for The Orlando Sentinel, shows that 57 percent of voters support the amendment while 36 perecent said they intend to vote against it.  Florida’s constitution requires a 60 percent majority to amend the document.

With a four percent margin of error in the poll results are too close to say the amendment is likely to be defeated, but most political analysts say usually such voter initiatives start out with a large percentage which becomes whittled down as opponents make voters aware of the issues and consequences.

The issue likely will be determined by the seven percent who said they were undecided.

A broad coalition of LGBT groups and their allies say they are mounting a massive campaign to defeat the amendment.

The proposed amendment says, “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

Florida already has a law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples but supporters of the amendment say the law could be overturned in court.

The conservative Florida4Marriage attempted to have the proposed amendment placed on the 2006 ballot but fell short of the required number of signatures. Under Florida law the organization was allowed to continue to add names to the petition in a bid to get it on the 2008 ballot. It was certified in February to go on the November ballot.

Last year it was discovered that the state GOP was bankrolling the amendment effort.

An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times into funding for the Florida4Marriage found that of the $193,000 that had been raised by the group $150,000 came from a single donor – the Florida Republican Party.

Opponents of the proposed amendment say in addition to barring gay marriage it would bar civil unions and would be used to deny partner benefits not only to same-sex couples but also to unmarried couples who live together.

That has spurred Florida Red and Blue a non-partisan organization to enter the fray on behalf of unmarried opposite-sex couples.

Last year in just 60 days the group amassed more than $1 million to battle the proposed amendment.

In fact, a draft of the document going to the GOP platform committee today mentions 2008 presidential candidate John McCain and President Bush not at all. They’ll be worked in later, in a section or two to be added.

It’s nothing personal, party officials hasten to say. Rather, they’ve put the platform on a crash diet.

The 2004 platform ran over 40,000 words, many of them turgid. It found 80 things to “applaud,” 17 to “hail,” a dozen to “commend” and several hundred opportunities to say what a great job Bush was doing and would continue to do. It was more than twice the length of the Democratic platform.

Now it’s been cut roughly in half.

The GOP platform co-chairmen, California Rep. Kevin McCarthy and North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, told AP on Monday they wanted the party principles to be about the actual party. And in the past, Burr said, “there was a lot of Washington-speak.”

Despite the stylistic change, familiar divisions are back as Republicans debate the principles over two days and strive for a united front behind McCain. That means bridging some differences, detouring around others.

The platform draft calls for constitutional bans on abortion and gay marriage, two steps McCain does not support.

It would put the party on record as accepting that economic activity contributes to global warming, in line with McCain’s views.

But the platform is loaded with caveats about the uncertainty of science and the need to “resist no-growth radicalism” in taking on climate change.

It warns that empowering Washington on the matter would have painful consequences, a less-than-rousing endorsement of McCain’s ambitious plan for mandatory federal emission cuts in a cap and trade program.

Sharp divisions still exist in the party on social issues, but there appeared to be little taste for complicating McCain’s chances by mounting a symbolic platform fight as the document is hashed out in Minneapolis.

“This isn’t a hill we’re going to die on,” said Scott Tucker, a spokesman for the gay rights group Log Cabin Republicans.

“Unlike previous years,” said Gary Bauer, a social-conservative veteran of platform struggles, “I just don’t see deep divisions within the party.”

Bauer, an evangelical Christian who is advising McCain, said the focus is on emphasizing Republican unity on the issues.

Ann Stone, national chairwoman of Republicans for Choice, said her abortion-rights group won’t go to the wall this time trying to overhaul the anti-abortion plank. The platform takes a typically hard line against abortion rights and calls again for a constitutional ban on abortion as well as on gay marriage.

“This is not going to be the year that we make big changes,” she said. “We know that we can’t get major things done.”

The 112-delegate platform committee meets as the Democratic National Convention unfolds in Denver. The platform will be adopted during next week’s GOP convention in St. Paul, Minn.

Democrats adopted their platform Monday, mostly following candidate Barack Obama’s prescriptions but going beyond his proposals in calling for guaranteed health care for all, in a compromise both with Hillary Rodham Clinton’s supporters and with activists who wanted government-run health care.

Party platforms are not binding on candidates or the next president and tend to be largely forgotten once they’re in place.

Even so, candidates want to make sure the document doesn’t drift too far from their own agenda and the GOP in particular has seen platform fights over a variety of social issues in the past.

Tucker said his group is “more interested in substance than symbolism” and believes McCain to be an “inclusive candidate who understands that our party needs to reach out to all Americans to win this election.”

McCain opposes gay marriage but also a constitutional amendment against it and has expressed limited support for the rights accorded couples in same-sex civil unions. Apart from opposing a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, he is against most abortion rights and says he would favor overturning the Supreme Court decision affirming those rights.

The Project Marriage Coalition said it made the decision after a state appeals court in Sacramento turned down an urgent appeal of a lower court ruling that upheld Attorney General Jerry Brown’s definition of the proposed constitutional amendment.

In a one-paragraph decision an appeals court panel order cited previous appellate court rulings holding that an attorney general’s title and summary should be presumed to be accurate and should be upheld even “if reasonable minds differ.”

Further legal action would be moot even if the group won since the case could not be heard in time for any change to ballots prior to the election.

The ballot question originally had been described as a measure to limit marriage between a man and a woman. Last month Brown changed the description to say the proposed amendment would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry and that it could result in California losing tens of millions of dollars in taxes.

The Project Marriage Coalition, the umbrella group that collected enough names to have the question placed on the ballot, went to court, accusing Brown of twisting the wording to influence the vote.

At a hearing last week, attorneys for Brown’s office said the original definition was written before the California Supreme Court in May struck down the state ban on same-sex marriage. Hundreds of gay and lesbian couples began lining up for marriage licenses the following month when the ruling took effect.

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley said that the title and summary accurately summarized the proposition.

“There is nothing inherently argumentative or prejudicial about transitive verbs, and the Court is not willing to fashion a rule that would require the Attorney General to engage in useless nominalization,” Frawley wrote.

The coalition then sought the expedited appeals court hearing.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) opposes the amendment and has said he will campaign against it. Brown, a Democrat, also opposes the amendment.

Despite the legal wrangling over the initiative, a poll released in July suggests the measure is likely to be defeated.

Fifty-one percent of likely voters said they would vote against the proposed amendment while 42-percent would support it.

The donation to Equality California was made by Bratton and his wife, former Court TV anchor Rikki Kleiman and came at the suggestion of celebrity publicist Howard Bragman.

Bragman married longtime partner Chuck O’Donnell last week.  When Bratton asked Bragman what the pair would like as a wedding gift the high powered pr man said they wanted a donation to help preserve same-sex marriage in California and Bratton agreed.

“The Constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” Bratton told the Los Angeles Times. “I see no reason why gays can’t pursue happiness through marriage.”

Bratton is not the only friend of the couple for forgo traditional wedding gifts to donate to Equality California. Lesbian tennis great Martina Navratilova also wrote a check. So did actor Isaiah Washington.

Washington has been a big supporter of LGBT rights after running into flack over homophobic remarks backstage last year at the Golden Globes.  Bragman is Washington’s agent and has been helping him make amends.

Bragman told the Times that he did not have to twist any arms to get support to defeat the proposed amendment which will appear on the ballot in November.

“Our marriage changed that for people who know us. Our love, respect and commitment has the power to change hearts and minds and make an ethereal concept real,” he told the paper.

The California Supreme Court in May struck down a law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The ruling went into effect in June. Since then several thousand same-sex couples have married in the state.

This month the Court declined to hear a challenge to the ballot measure.

Public opinion polls show California voters narrowly approving of same-sex marriage.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has pledged to fight against the proposed amendment.