This comes after gay marriage advocates were fairly confidently predicting that New York State would have gay marriage by Pride. The State Assembly has already voted in favor; the governor has said he’d sign.

The Times said:

“Why Mr. Espada and Mr. Monserrate suddenly defected on Monday afternoon was not immediately clear.

One source of contention among Democrats recently has been Mr. Smith’s support for same-sex marriage. Senator Rubén Díaz Jr., a Democrat from the Bronx, has been outspoken in his insistence that legislation allowing gay couples to marry not be allowed to come to a vote. Some had speculated he might leave the Democratic Party if Mr. Smith were to allow a vote.

But Mr. Diaz did not join Mr. Espada and Mr. Monserrate in the leadership vote on Monday. It was not immediately clear whether the same-sex marriage legislation played any role in the leadership dispute.”

This from the New York Daily News:

“Another rumor du jour is that Diaz, who is furious that the gay marriage bill he opposes appears to be gaining some traction in the Senate, would be angry enough with Smith if the measure comes up for a vote on the floor to join the Senate GOP.

I asked Diaz about that, and he said:

“Today? No. Tomorrow? Who knows? Tomorrow is another day. It’s always another day. You ask me do I plan to do that. I say, no. In the future, who knows what the future brings.”
“The only thing I can tell you, and you can interpret this any which way you want: When I give my word, I keep my word. In order for me to break my word, you have to break yours first.”

Here’s how I interpret that:

It’s a (typically) cryptic way of Diaz Sr. confirming the worst fears of marriage advocates – that there was indeed a deal between himself and Smith that the gay marriage bill would not come to the floor in exchange for Diaz Sr.’s support of Smith for majority leader.

And now, in Diaz Sr.’s mind, if Smith brings the bill to the floor, all bets are off.”

PolitickerNY says that the coup is completed; Republicans are back in control. The site says that the revolt happened because of unhappiness with leader Malcolm Smith – it was “chaos,” they said.

Whyever it happened, it seems very unlikely that a Republican-controlled NY Senate will allow gay marriage to come up for a vote.

As the legislature haggles with Gov. John Lynch over the wording of a bill to provide marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples, Republicans attempted to seize an opportunity to propose the issue be put to voters in a non-binding referendum.

All 10 Senate Republicans voted for the proposal.  It was defeated when all 14 Senate Democrats opposed it.

The House and Senate will soon name a conference committee to draft a compromise bill on same-sex marriage that would be acceptable to Lynch.

A same-sex marriage bill passed the legislature earlier this month, but Lynch said he would veto it unless it offered better protections to churches that oppose same-sex marriage.

The revisions approved last week in the Senate by a 14-10 vote would have made it clear that churches, church organizations and staff are protected from lawsuits if they refuse to permit same-sex marriages.

But when it went to the House it was defeated by two votes – 188-186.

If a compromise is reached and Lynch signs the bill, it would make New Hampshire the sixth state to permit same-sex marriage and the fifth in New England, excluding only Rhode Island.

Outside of New England, gay marriage is legal in Iowa.

The bill received preliminary approval in the Senate on Tuesday on a 25-22 vote. It must go through a second vote before being sent to the House.

Supporters of the bill believe they have enough support for passage. A similar bill died in the legislature last year.

The legislation covers race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity. It would require any school employee who witnesses or knows of harassment or bullying to report the incident to school officials.

The inclusion of sexuality and gender identity was strongly opposed by conservative lawmakers and activist groups.

North Carolina’s two Roman Catholic bishops denounced the bill as a prelude to legalizing same-sex marriage.

The Christian Action League of North Carolina urged its members to call or send e-mail to their senators telling them to vote against the measure.  And the Family Policy Council of North Carolina said that if the bill passed it would lead to the expansion of the state’s hate crime law and anti-discrimination laws to cover gays.

But supporters of the bill pointed to a growing number of students in other states who were bullied because fellow students thought they were gay.

There have been at least four suicide of middle-school aged children linked to homophobic bullying according to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

Carl Walker-Hoover, an 11-year-old from Springfield, Mass., took his life April 6 after enduring constant bullying at school, including anti-LGBT attacks. Carl did not identify as gay.

Also last month, the parents of a Mentor, Ohio, high school student filed a federal lawsuit in connection with their son’s suicide. Eric Mohat, 17, went home from school on March 27, 2007, put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger.

In a federal lawsuit, his parents allege that he regularly “was called ‘gay,’ ‘fag,’ ‘queer’ and ‘homo’ among other names” and that the school did nothing to prevent it.

A 2007 study by GLSEN of more than 6,000 LGBT students found that nearly nine out of 10 LGBT youth reported being verbally harassed at school in the past year because of their sexual orientation, nearly half reported being physically harassed and about a quarter reported being physically assaulted.

The domestic partner law allows same-sex couples –  and opposite-sex couples who do not marry -to form legally-recognized partnerships. It was passed by the legislature in 2007 and went into effect in January 2008.

Under the partnership law, couples who register are guaranteed the right to visit partners in the hospital and make medical decisions, file joint state tax returns, and have joint health insurance plans or take sick leave to care for their partners.

But a growing number of same-sex couples have complained the law was cobbled together and ended up causing problems.

“Oregon’s domestic partnership system creates a patchwork of protections for committed same-sex couples,” said Jeana Frazzini, Executive Director of Basic Rights Oregon. 

There are three main revisions to the law. 

The first creates a uniform and streamlined process for domestic partners seeking a name change, updating this process to reflect the law for opposite-sex married couples.

The second provision clears up confusion for same-sex couples whose relationships are recognized as civil unions or marriages in other states. 

The third preserves a long-standing state practice related to taxation on employer-provided partner health care. 

State Rep. Tina Kotek (D) said that the existing law is “confusing and problematic not only for the couples but also for the agencies involved.”

The bill passed the House by a vote of 51 to 8 and moves to the state Senate for consideration.

The vote came after a gay man was kicked out of the hospital room of his sick partner earlier this month.

While the law allows registered domestic partners to visit one another in the hospital and make medical decisions, an uninformed nurse told the man he had to leave his partners’ bedside, just as end-of- life decisions came under discussion.

LGBT advocates said that the experience indicates that Oregon’s domestic partnership law is falling short of its promise.

“Can you imagine a nurse at our state’s premier teaching hospital telling a woman that she wasn’t allowed to visit her husband’s hospital room when he was on his death bed? This couple’s experience demonstrates all too well that Oregon’s domestic partnership systems falls far short of its promise. Without the honor and respect that comes with marriage, caring and committed couples have a long way to go before they experience equality,” said Frazzini.

The original domestic partner law was passed after a legal battle for gay marriage failed.

The issue of same-sex marriage in the state arose in March 2004 when Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. 

Soon after, the county was ordered to stop, but not before 3,000 marriage licenses had been granted. The constitutional amendment, known as Measure 36, was passed that November.

The hearings were to have been held at the State House, but moved to the civic center to accomodate the large number of people expected.

Supporters of gay marriage far outnumbered opponents.  That was obvious when gay marriage legislation sponsor, Sen. Dennis S. Damon (D), took to the podium amid massive cheers.

Damon said the time has come to recognize same-sex marriages in Maine. Marriage equality, he said, “recognizes the worth of every man and woman among us.”

The committee is looking at three bills, two of them from Damon. One bill would repeal Maine’s 12-year old so-called Defense of Marriage law, which bars same-sex marriage; a second bill would make marriage gender-neutral.

The marriage bill states that churches would not be compelled to conduct same-sex weddings if they were inconsistent with their doctrine.

The measure  has more than 60 lawmakers as co-sponsors. Damon said the legislators represent both Democrats and Republicans and that they come from Maine’s smallest towns and largest cities.

Normally no more than 10 lawmakers are allowed to sign on as co-sponsors of a bill, but Damon said 50 others sought to have their names added.

A third bill, filed by Rep. Leslie Fossel (R) would create a domestic-partner registry while maintaining DOMA. It is considered unlikely to move out of committee.

The marriage bill has a better chance of passing, but its prospects before the full House and Senate are still uncertain. 

 Gov. John Baldacci previously opposed the bill, but now he says he’s keeping an open mind.

If the marriage bill passes the legislature and is signed into law, then only New Hampshire and Rhode Island would not have equal marriage in New England. Legislation currently is before the  New Hampshire Senate. It has already passed the House.

Last November, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based LGBT rights group that brought the successful legal challenges leading to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and Connecticut, launched the “Six by Twelve” campaign to legalize gay marriage throughout all six New England states by 2012.

The Siena College poll released Monday was taken just days before Paterson unveiled legislation to allow same-sex couples to marry in the Empire State.

The poll found 53 percent of voters approve of same-sex marriage, while 39 percent are opposed.

But the governor’s approval ratings continued to drop.

Only 27 percent of voters view Paterson favorably, while 63 percent viewed him unfavorably. Only 12 percent of voters would elect Paterson in 2010, the Siena poll found.

Paterson’s bill would allow civil marriages between same-sex couples.

“The timing is always right. It’s just a matter of who is willing to take the step, and I am,” said Paterson at a Thursday news conference, calling on the state Senate to allow a vote on the bill.

The legislation is similar to a bill that passed the Assembly in 2007 but was stonewalled by the GOP, which controlled the state Senate.

Democrats now control the Senate, but State Senate Majority Leader Malcolm A. Smith (D) has said he does not have the votes to pass marriage equality legislation and will not bring the bill to a vote.

Both Smith and Paterson have been outspoken supporters of marriage equality, but while Smith wants a “go slowly” approach, the governor said a vote should be held this session.

Last May, while the legislature dithered over gay marriage, Paterson issued an executive order recognizing the marriages of all New York same-sex couples who were married in areas where they are legal.

In 2006 the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, ruled that same-sex couples do not have a constitutional right to marry. It said that the issue, however, could be taken up by the legislature.

This month, Vermont became the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage.  Days earlier, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a law banning gay marriage as unconstitutional.

Same-sex marriage also is legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Marriage equality legislation is being considered in New Hampshire. It already has passed the House and is currently before the Senate.

In California, the Supreme Court is expected to rule this spring on the legality of Prop 8, the voter approved measure banning gay marriage in that state.

In the first two days after he pledged to veto a same-sex marriage bill, Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas’ mailbag and e-mail inbox runneth over, with about 1,500 letters and messages pouring in.

Some were critical:

- “(Vetoing the bill) would clearly show the deep feelings of discrimination, bigotry and hate you feel for a group of Vermont people who have already had to wait for equal marriage rights in our state too long,” wrote a Newport man.

-”Being ahead of one’s time is what brought slavery and racial discrimination to an end … please support the Freedom to Marry bill,” wrote a Putney man.

- ” … your choice to veto is a slap in the face and a firm reminder that in your opinion, my partner and I are worth less than others simply because we are of the same gender,” wrote a South Burlington man, saying he refuses to be “a second class citizen in this state.”

Some were supportive:

- “It takes courage,” wrote a woman from Ovando, Mont. “Keep up the fight. Our prayers are with you. You are setting an example for other states.”

- “Our children, grand children will be harmed by this bill,” wrote a Milton woman. “I’ve seen what their teaching can do to a impressionistic teenage (sic) like my nephew, who is very confused. Please, please, please veto this bill.”

- “Your stance is reasonable and not unkind,” wrote a Burlington woman. “It must have been a difficult political decision, but right nonetheless. There are many Vermonters who are with you, but simply don’t how to articulate it. Hold firm!”

The missives, made available in response to an Access to Public Records Act request filed by The Associated Press, show the ardor of both supporters and opponents on the issue and on Douglas’ planned veto of a bill legalizing marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

Democrats in the Legislature say they plan to pass the bill, but the Republican governor said Wednesday he will veto it if they do. His announcement has galvanized forces on both sides of the issue, prompting the flood of mail from around the nation.

The state Senate has approved the measure, and the state House of Representatives is expected to vote on it Friday.

Vermont would become the third state allowing same-sex marriage, after Massachusetts and Connecticut. The California Supreme Court lifted a ban on same-sex marriage there last spring, but voters restored the ban six months later.

“This is an emotional, divisive issue,” Douglas spokeswoman Dennise Casey said.

Before Douglas’ announcement, the letters and e-mails on gay marriage were running about 70 percent against the bill to legalize it, Casey said. Since the announcement, supporters of same-sex marriage have been outnumbering opponents, with 60 percent of the letters and e-mails received speaking in favor it and 40 percent against, she said.

Some supporters pledged to take out their displeasure at the ballot box, threatening to vote against Douglas.

“You have disappointed me,” wrote a Middlesex man. “I will vote against you in the primary if you choose to seek re-election, and I will not vote for you again in any election,” said the man, who said he was from a family now turning from “formerly loyal Republicans into Democrats.”

Hang in there, same-sex marriage opponents told him.

“I know you are under great pressure from all sorts of pro-gay lobbies/groups, but it’s time that people used some backbone and stood against these pressures, no matter what the cost,” wrote a man from Indianapolis.

The bill is slated for discussion Tuesday in the Youth and Family Committee and a large number of gay and lesbian couples are expected to pack the committee room.  But even Harris admits it will be tough to get the measure to a vote in the House.

Two years ago, a civil union bill introduced by Harris died when the session ended and conservative groups already have made it known they will fight the marriage bill. They’ve work to push for a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage they hope will make it to the ballot in 2010.

The marriage bill, officially called the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act would “provide eligible same-sex and opposite-sex couples with the same treatment as those in a civil marriage.”

“[T]he current marriage law is discriminatory and harms same-sex couples; and there is no compelling interest or rational basis to deny same-sex couples those benefits,” the bill’s description says.

The bill also makes it clear that no church would be required to perform or recognize same-sex marriages.

The legislation currently has four co-sponsors. Harris said that he hopes that even if the measure fails to gain traction this year, the debate will help advance it in the future.

In 2007 Harris’ civil union bill, called the Religious Freedom and Civil Union Act passed the House Human Services Committee but then languished until the session ended in January.

However, since the number collected fell within the state “grace” guideline, the group has another 30 days to get the additional signatures.

The Arkansas Family Council Action Committee needs 61,974 of the signatures to have the issued placed before voters.

Secretary of State Charlie Daniels’ office certified that 57,888 of the signatures the group submitted in were valid. 

Family Council Executive Director Jerry Cox said he expects to reach the goal.

“In fact, we’ve already been gathering signatures, which is permitted under the law, while they’ve been reviewing them,” Cox told The Arkansas News Bureau.

LGBT rights group Arkansas Families First said it intends to fight the initiative.

The adoption referendum is similar to a bill that died in the Arkansas legislature earlier this year. That legislation failed after Gov. Mike Beebe suggested that there were constitutional problems with the bill, although he would not say if he intended to veto it if it were passed.

Arkansas’s Child Welfare Agency Review Board established a policy in 1999 that banned gay people from serving as foster parents, but the Arkansas Supreme Court struck it down after a seven-year legal battle.  The court declared unanimously that “the driving force behind adoption of the regulations was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather based upon the board’s views of morality and its bias against homosexuals.”

The Arkansas Family Council was largely responsible for the passage of an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution banning gay marriage.