Maryland inches closer to passing marriage-equality in the State Senate, while Indiana postpones a Valentines Day vote to outlaw same-sex marriage and civil unions. That’s in today’s State Marriage Watch:

– MARYLAND: Sen. Edward J. Kasemeyer said that he will support legalizing same-sex marriage, “bringing the bill to within one vote of the number needed for passage in his chamber.” Advocates of marriage equality “believe that they have the 29 votes needed to cut off debate in the chamber and vote. The bill is expected to be voted out of committee this Thursday.”

– COLORADO: State Sen. Pat Steadman has introduced a measure that would bring civil unions to the state. Coloradans voted in 2006 “to ban same-sex marriage by passing Amendment 43, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, but polls show deep support in the state for civil unions. Last year two national polling firms, Greenberg Quinlan Rossner and American Viewpoint, found support for civil unions in the 70 percent and 80 percent range. This year Public Policy Polling found roughly 72 percent of Coloradans supported civil unions.” Steadman’s bill should easily pass in the Democratic-controlled state Senate. The measure should pass the Democratically-controlled Senate, but may face more difficulty in the House where Republicans hold a one seat majority.

– MICHIGAN: Reps. Jeff Irwin and Sen. Rebekah Warren introduced “bills in both houses of the state legislature to allow unmarried couples, including gay couples, to adopt children in Michigan.” “Studies have shown the importance to children of maintaining a safe, loving home with two stable parents,” Rep Irwin said in a press release. “This bill removes legal hurdles for unmarried couples who want to provide legal rights for themselves and their adopted children.”

– NEW HAMPSHIRE: On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee will consider two bills that would repeal New Hampshire’s same-sex marriage law. “House Republican Leader D.J. Bettencourt has said he will ask the Judiciary Committee to keep the bills until next year, but hearings must be held this year under House rules.”

– INDIANA: The House was expected to approve a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage and civil unions, but the vote has been delayed to allow more members an opportunity to co-sponsor the measure.

For a complete overview of the latest developments in the marriage battleground states of Rhode Island, Maryland, New York, California, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wyoming, Iowa, and New Mexico, click here.

In an effort to demonstrate the real consequences of the health care cuts proposed in the GOP’s continuing resolution (CR) proposal, the AIDS Institute has put out this release arguing the reductions would devastate HIV/AIDS treatment and research. “While it may help achieve short term goals to reduce federal government spending, this reckless action will have long term impacts on the health and wellbeing of people living with HIV/AIDS and on efforts to prevent HIV infections in the future,” Carl Schmid, Deputy Executive Director of The AIDS Institute said in the release. “In the long run, the costs to society and individual’s lives will be far greater than any short term savings.” Here are some of the cuts:

– $25 million cut from the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP). ADAP is a program of last resort for the poorest Americans who don’t qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. Currently, there is a waiting list of over 6,000 people in ten states to receive benefits from the program.

– $850 million general reduction to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The organization distributes funding to cities and states for prevention, testing, surveillance, education programs and condoms.

– $1.6 billion cut in funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), significantly impacting HIV/AIDS research.

– Prevents DC, a place with one of the highest rates of HIV in the country, from spending its own money on syringe exchange programs.

All of this would have a direct impact on today’s AIDS patients, but it would also significantly undermine efforts to slow the spread of the epidemic and — by underfunding prevention — increase treatment costs down the road. So what’s the logic in all this? Well, as Paul Krugman describes in today’s New York Times, Republicans have adopted the approach of feeding on the future: “Focus the cuts on programs whose benefits aren’t immediate; basically, eat America’s seed corn,” he writes. By slashing future-oriented programs, they can deliver the instant spending cuts Tea Partiers demand, without imposing too much immediate pain on voters. And as for the future costs — a population damaged by childhood malnutrition, an increased chance of terrorist attacks, a revenue system undermined by widespread tax evasion — well, tomorrow is another day.”

At CPAC this weekend, some commentators argued that gays are “natural conservatives“, and so it will be interesting to see if Republican GOP groups like the Log Cabin Republicans or GOProud will condemn these cuts since they would disproportionately affect the gay community.

This afternoon, during an eQualityThinking Panel titled, “The Truth Behind The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal,” former Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) tried to explain why advocates of DADT repeal ultimately bargained away the requirement that the Pentagon implement a new nondiscrimination policy after lifting the ban against open-service. The provision — which would specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation — was part of Murphy’s initial amendment but was later removed to improve the chances of passage, as the former Congressman described it. Gay rights leaders are now pressuring President Obama to issue an executive order instituting a nondiscrimination policy to ensure that gay troops have the same rights and protections as straight servicemembers.

“[E]veryone played a vital role in passing this major piece of civil rights legislation all being it’s not perfect. The 1964 civil rights legislation was not perfect, but it was a huge step on the way forward,” Murphy said on the call. “We need to make sure that we continue to keep the pressure on to make sure that they don’t try to revoke this over in the Congress.”

Aubrey Sarvis, Executive Director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), who was also on the call, reiterated Murphy’s explanation saying, “a decision was made by the leaders of the legislation on the Hill that those provisions would have to be dropped in order to insure more votes, not only in the House Armed Services Committee, but also on the House floor. So, it was a matter of practical necessity and politics.” In May, Murphy had suggested that he received assurances that the government would implement a nondiscrimination policy once DADT is repealed. “I’m fully confident in the public testimony of both Secretary of Defense Gates of Chairman Mike Mullen and our current Commander in Chief, Barack Obama, that they have been very clear that they want to have a nondiscriminatory policy in place,” he told me. He did not, however, reiterate this commitment on today’s call or address why Obama dodged the question twice during a recent interview with Kerry Eleveld.

Murphy also added that the certification language — which was also not part of the original repeal amendment — was added to give the Pentagon “buy in” and build support for the measure among more conservative members in Congress. “Putting that language in the bill that was finally passed it gave them buy in, it wasn’t like we were shoving it down their necks,” he said, before adding, “I don’t think this is a gradual phase out, it’s going to be a light switch — it’s just a procedure that needs to be agreed on.”

In September 2009, in yet another effort to plug the state’s budget hole, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) and the state legislature eliminated health benefits for domestic partners, adversely affecting same-sex couples who cannot marry in the state. Lambda Legal sued the state on behalf of 10 state employee and in July of 2010, a federal judge rejected the state’s claim that “the elimination of benefits will not harm the families of gay and lesbian employees” and temporarily prevented the benefit cuts, saying that the law “violated the U.S. Constitution’s equal-protection clause by making it impossible for homosexuals to get health coverage for their partners.”

Today, the state is challenging the decision before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court lifts the injunction, some 480 LGBT families and children could lose their health benefits:

A three-judge panel in San Francisco hears oral arguments today. Arizona spends $625 million a year on employee benefits, of which roughly $5 million went to benefits for all domestic partners.

The state can’t require employees to be married in order to qualify for family benefits when Arizona offers no legal unions for same-sex couples, said Tara Borelli, an attorney with Lambda Legal, a New York-based advocacy group that filed the lawsuit.

“The state has set up a legal impossibility for gay couples,” said Borelli, who will argue the case today.

In addition, the state can’t discriminate against a group of people to save money, she said. But the state argues that there’s no requirement to offer benefits to domestic partners. More than half the states and the federal government do not.

The state began offering benefits to domestic partners in 2007, after then-Governor Janet Napolitano (D) implemented a rule change. “That put Arizona in line with 20 states and several Arizona cities, including Phoenix, Tempe, Tucson and Scottsdale,” according to the Arizona Republic.

What’s more, given the state’s opposition to federal health care reform, if Arizona prevails in the 9th circuit and domestic dependents lose their insurance, gay partners will have a particularly difficult time finding affordable coverage. They won’t be able to receive benefits through marriage, because Arizona does not recognize same-sex relationships and may have a hard time taking advantage of the new reforms if the state resists implementing the Affordable Care Act.