The thing is, the failure of the legislation, if it comes to it, is pretty much assured: as the same-sex marriage advocates who poured money into Democratic campaigns in 2008 have found out, the 32-30 Democratic majority, which includes outspoken gay-marriage opponent Ruben Diaz Sr., is still incapable (if not actively unwilling) of mustering the votes.

No wonder Tom Duane, the sponsor of the same-sex-marriage legislation in the Senate, was less than enthusiastic about the governor's gesture.

Meanwhile, far from feeling pressured, some opponents of same-sex marriage see Paterson's move as an opportunity.

"Interest is piqued," said the Rev. Jason McGuire, legislative director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, which has lobbied extensively against making same-sex marriage legal. "If the Democrats get too liberal too fast, they're going to ramp up efforts to retake the Senate."

McGuire said he expects national organizations like Focus on the Family to become more active in New York if same-sex marriage becomes a major issue. Democrats dispute that this will hurt them, obviously, but are also shying away from the political risks.

He also said, "The governor, I think, as his numbers continue to plummet, is looking for a win somewhere and I think he's looking to rally his base on this issue."

At least two Democratic senators—Darrel Aubertine and Ruben Diaz Sr.—have said they will not vote to legalize same-sex marriage. Aubertine, who was first elected in a special election in 2008, is considered to have a competitive race ahead of him.

Some more liberal members of the conference seem less concerned about the possibility of a backlash.

"The people of the state of New York made a very clear statement that they are not interested in maintaining the old Republican guard and the old Republican way of doing things in this State Senate, and that's why they put the Democrats in the State Senate, with a full understanding that our platform includes things like marriage equality for all," Senator Jose Serrano said by phone.

"I understand that everyone has a different position and opinion on this," he added. "But this will show that we as a conference have taken a progressive stand on an issue that the peple of the state of New York have also taken a strong stand."

Shams Tarek, a spokesman for the state Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, said the conference members are "going to expand their majority by focusing on the state's economy, creating jobs and undoing the fiscal damage done by 40 years of Republican rule."

A bill to legalize same-sex marriage previously passed in the Assembly, which is run by a large Democratic majority.

Sources involved in formulating plan with Senate leadership said that central staffers worked on the plan all weekend, and are trying to keep it as much under wraps as possible so as not to be co-opted by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. Silver's position is on the table.

"All I'm going to say is that it's good and I think will work for everyone," one of the sources said.

Now that Smith actually plans to take action, which he has been called on to do, here's a selective timeline of how the issue developed during the last four months.

December 4: Former M.T.A. head Richard Ravitch unveils a proposal that would bridge the authority's $1.2 billion budget deficit and expand service to outlying areas by imposing a regional payroll tax and tolling bridges over the East and Harlem River.

December 8: State Senator Daniel Squadron, whose district spans the East River, issues a report raising questions about the bridge tolls.

December 16: The M.T.A. Board meets and approves a "doomsday" budget with large fare increases and service cuts. They say they will vote to implement the fare increases on March 25 if there is not some outside action, i.e. the Ravitch plan.

January 7: David Paterson mentions the need to implement the Ravitch plan during his State of the State address. Michael Bloomberg says he agrees, but still smarting from congestion pricing, says he doesn't want to be out in front on the issue.

January 14: State Senator Jose Serrano tells me he thinks there should be a difference between tolls on the East River bridges and the Harlem River bridges.

January 22: Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith and members of his conference indicate support for the payroll tax proposed in the Ravitch plan, and without mentioning tolls, promises he will man up and act by March 25.

January 27: Paterson leaves a leaders meeting and says action will be taken on the M.T.A.'s deficit within "a reasonable period of time."

Febuary 25: Sheldon Silver proposes a modified plan with tolls of only $2. State Senator Martin Malave Dilan tells me he supports the Ravitch plan, with a few caveats. Fellow Brooklynite Carl Kruger, like most outer-borough elected officials, emphatically opposes the tolls and calls them "an attack on the outer boroughs." It becomes clear that Silver's measure may not make it through the State Senate.

February 26: Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos declares Republican opposition to any proposal with a payroll tax and says he believes any assistance for the M.T.A. should be coupled with assistance for transportation projects upstate.

March 3: Smith says he's not willing to include additional funding for transit upstate as a balancing element to any M.T.A. bailout because "the stimulus package is taking care of upstate."

March 4: Even as 23 Democrats within his own chamber sign a letter opposing bridge tolls, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver says he "believes" that the plan will pass before the March 25 deadline. Republican leaders say the M.T.A. was not discussed in a closed-door leaders meeting.

March 5: It now becomes clear that there is a complete lack of consensus as the State Senate fails to act on a package by the end of the week's session, which was the stated goal.

March 9: State Senator Kevin Parker joins the anti-toll crowd. The other revenue-generating ideas get weirder and weirder. Paterson and Smith say they believe some package will pass on time.

March 10: Smith calls the March 25 deadline "questionable" as Silver says he's not going to play chicken. The idea factory churns, with Kruger weighing in.

March 11: At a leaders meeting, Paterson says action needs to be taken. Smith says after that he'll hear his members out on their ideas to raise revenue.

March 12: State Senator Hiram Monserrate comes out against tolls; Silver says the senate needs to "focus."

March 13: The M.T.A. holds a special board meeting to stand by its deadline.

March 16: Smith briefs Democratic senators on a new plan to help the authority.

UPDATE: Austin Shafran, Malcolm Smith’s spokesman, denies the first part of this post. Pretty much.

“We’re still working on a plan to address the budget shortfall,” Shafran said at his weekly briefing on the chamber’s doings. “To my knowledge we’ve had no proposal or even an outline of a proposal drafted as of yet as well as being presented to the members, and I haven’t heard about any plans to do so today. So I don’t have a timeline.”

Shafran was asked by the Daily News’ Glenn Blain whether he could be definitive that nothing would be brought to the members today on the M.T.A.

“I can tell you that absolutely nothing has been brought to the members today and I can tell you that we have no plans to present them with any kind of a draft proposal or outline as of now,” Shafran said.

UPDATE: Um.

All eyes are on the State Senate—and Majority Leader Malcolm Smith—as the deadline to act on the MTA's deficit approaches. There don't seem to be enough votes in the chamber to pass the plan proposed by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver last week, yesterday which Republicans oppose because of a payroll tax, and which is opposed by several Democrats because it includes $2 tolls on the East and Harlem River bridges.

But the majority leader has not taken questions on the issue since a radio appearance early yesterday morning. Smith and his top staffers have been meeting with the M.T.A., the governor's counsel and even former New York City Deputy Mayor Marc Shaw to hash out something on the issue, but exactly what is not clear.

"We're working on it, but we're also working on a number of other things," said Smith spokesman Austin Shafran. "We'll have a determination with the conference soon."

There's a lot to determine. Various senators are, variously, saying various things to reporters. Here's a smattering:

State Senator Daniel Squadron, whose district spans the East River, told me he wouldn't rule out tolls and applauded Silver for moving the ball down the field, but he said, "I prefer variable rates, and I'm going to be pushing for that."

He said he's also looking at residential parking. I asked Squadron whether he would vote against the Speaker's plan. He paused before saying, "If there were a better alternative on the table."

State Senator Jose Serrano Jr., whose district spans the Harlem River, said, "I've made public statements in support of the tolling and the Ravitch plan. We're not going to save ourselves completely on fares alone, and that's why we have to look for other sources of revenue and that's why I support it."

"I think in principle and in theory we have to do the responsible thing," he said.

State Senator Antoine Thompson represents Buffalo, and corrected me when I suggested he had no stake in the tolling by pointing out he has family who live in Brooklyn. "I'm movable. I'd also like to se the Niagara Frontier Transit Authority get something as well," he said.

State Senator Martin Malave Dilan, the chairman of the transportation committee, offered a semi-authoritative take on where negotiations stand.

"Yesterday looked bleak, today it's looking a little better," he said Wednesday night. "I think it's softened a little. There's still some more work to do there, but I think the leader is confident he can get most of the members on board if we get certain guarantees from the M.T.A."

Dilan said "tweaking the tolls" and raising the fee on car registrations in the M.T.A. service zone was being discussed.

Two state senators who have come out strongly against the tolls are not budging, at least rhetorically. State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. told me Wednesday that he has "many concerns" with how tolling would work that are not being answered.

I asked State Senator Carl Kruger this afternoon if things had thawed. He gestured to his black shoes.

"Do you see any water? I haven't melted," he said. "I would be opposed if there was a five cent toll."

He said the M.T.A. should "share the pain."

State Senator Diane Savino said that the M.T.A.'s finances needed to be more closely examined, which Senate Democrats are doing.

"Do you actually believe the M.T.A.? If you do, you shouldn't," she said.

State Senator Marty Golden suggested bringing back the commuter tax in place of bridge tolls and the payroll tax. "Those are the people that should be paying a little more," Golden said.

Luckily (or unluckily) lawmakers have three more weeks before the MTA's doomsday budget goes into effect on March 25.

CORRECTION: Sheldon Silver first proposed a plan including bridge tolls last week.

The Democrats hadn't even won the State Senate majority - an elusive prize they've sought for four decades - when the first split emerged. A so-called "gang of four" was reserving support of Senator Malcolm Smith for majority leader, its members hoping they could win a better prize for themselves.

Three are Latino, and complained about the lack of representation in the state's top leadership. During the week, two of the group - Senator Ruben Diaz and Pedro Espada, Jr. - said they would remain loyal to the party. This weekend, Senator-elect Hiram Monserrate was reported to have backed Smith. (The Times Union reported that Diaz and Senator Carl Kruger would soon support Smith; Republicans are assiduously courting Espada.)

With a handful of men from a single party now theoretically holding the keys to a legislative process that is at least nominally controlled by one party, some political leaders are wondering how important other factors - race, region, ideology - will be now that there's no partisan balancing.

Phillips, the Columbia professor, pointed to Massachusetts, where Democrats outnumber Republican voters and control each statewide office.

"You get lots of really nasty factionalizations, and sometimes it's hard to get things done," he said. "When you look at the New York Senate you see that as well, even though there's a narrow margin."

Two important cleavages are race and region. The ethnic and racial undercurrent of the "gang of four" movement illustrates the first point.

For example, Diaz, a Pentecostal minister, is also the ideological antithesis of most of the Democratic conference on social issues like same-sex marriage. With such a thin margin, observers say, it's going to be difficult for the Democrats to ignore Diaz as they work out a strategy for pursuing the liberal social agenda that many of them want and will be expected by activist constituents to deliver.

"We've got a majority now, but what are you going to do with it? Where's marriage equality?" said one Democratic lawmaker. "Where do you find the middle? It's not going to be easy...and they couldn't have picked a worse time for this transition to happen."

Geography is another potential wedge. Republicans played off upstate resentment of downstate for years, and are still beating that drum. Officials from both parties north of Westchester County expressed concern at their lack of representation, which used to be clearly rest with former Majority Leader Joe Bruno, who retired this summer.

James Domagalski, a Buffalo attorney who chairs the Erie County Republican Committee, made the case this way: "There are two very different parts of the state and two very different economies with different circumstances. We need to have the issues that we face upstate addressed, and there's a real concern with the senate and assembly being in the control of downstaters."

Malcolm Smith, for his part, is cognizant of the problem. He takes pains to speak about "one New York" and said that diversity within the conference is a source of strength. Senator Jose Serrano, an ally of Smith, echoed that.

"I think Malcolm has done a lot to quell that upstate-downstate rift, and now he's really going to put it to bed," Serrano said. He pointed to Smith's support of Senators Darrel Aubertine and David Valesky, who beat Republicans in Upstate districts where "liberal" is a politically dirty word. "We have conservative factions. We have progressive factions like my self. And that's OK - that's the beauty of diversity."

It's beautiful in theory, at least.

"The proof is in the pudding," the elected Democrat said. "But if things continue on this path, it doesn't look good."