HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) – The leaders of the Connecticut Legislature’s Judiciary Committee announced Friday they want to pull the same-sex marriage bill from consideration this session.

The move comes on the eve of last week’s landmark state Supreme Court hearing on whether the constitutional rights of Connecticut’s gay and lesbian couples are being violated by not being allowed to enter into marriage. Connecticut does allow civil unions.

Lawmakers said they don’t have enough votes at this point in the session to pass the legislation, even though they said the count is close.

“We’re going to pass marriage, that’s absolutely happening. It’s just not happening this year,” said Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chair of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee.

Last month, the committee approved the bill on a 27-15 vote, but its fate in the House of Representatives is uncertain. Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who signed the civil unions bill into law in 2005, has said she would veto a same-sex marriage bill. Rell said she believes marriage is between one man and one woman.

Lawlor said a significant number of legislators have told him and Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, his committee co-chair, that they personally favor same-sex marriage, but feel the state won’t be ready for it for another year or two. He said they decided to ask that the bill be withdrawn because time is running out in this year’s legislative session and they didn’t want the high court to focus on what the legislature was doing with the issue.

But opponents of same-sex marriage see the bill’s withdrawal as a “massive victory for marriage.”

“The Family Institute of Connecticut is thrilled that the legislature has heeded the majority of voters in the state who do not want to see marriage radically redefined,” said Peter Wolfgang, the group’s public policy director, in an e-mail to supporters.

Monday’s court case, Kerrigan & Mock et al v. Connecticut Department of Public Health, stems from a lawsuit filed two-and-a-half years ago by eight gay and lesbian couples who were denied marriage licenses. The case questions whether those couples’ rights to due process and equal protection under Connecticut’s constitution have been violated.

The hearing will also shine the spotlight on Connecticut’s civil union law, which grants same-sex couples the same state rights and privileges as married couples, except for being allowed to actually marry. A similar case is before the California high court.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, whose office is defending the state on Monday, said if the justices rule in the plaintiffs’ favor, that could have national implications for states that have passed or are considering passing civil union-like legislation.

“The national ramifications would result from a decision to strike down the current legal structure and determine there is a state constitutional right to marriage between members of the same sex,” he said. “If the court rules the other way and upholds the current body of law, there really will be very little impact nationally.”

Earlier this week, Oregon was the latest in a growing list of states to offer same-sex couples at least some benefits of marriage. The Oregon legislation creates “domestic partnerships” for same-sex couples, allowing them to enter into contractual relationships. The New Hampshire legislature, meanwhile, recently passed a civil unions bill and Gov. John Lynch has said he will sign it.

So far, only Massachusetts allows same-sex couples to marry. Connecticut, Vermont, California, New Jersey, Maine and Washington have laws allowing either civil unions or domestic partnerships. Hawaii extends certain spousal rights to same-sex couples and cohabiting heterosexual pairs.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of the New York-based Freedom to Marry organization and author of the book Why Marriage Matters, said civil unions or domestic partnerships are simply a new legal status created to give and withhold rights to people.

“The question that these courts are going to look at is, why is the state creating two lines at the clerk’s office and sending some families around back when the state has acknowledged that these families exist and are worthy of protection,” he said.

Blumenthal said his office will argue on Monday that the state had a “rational basis” for using two different names for the same rights and benefits accorded to straight and same-sex couples in Connecticut.

The state Supreme Court is not expected to announce its decision until later this year. Lawlor said he wouldn’t be surprised if the justices decline to rule on the matter and send it back to the legislature to decide what to do since it didn’t explain the reasoning for two separate systems.

“If you’re going to discriminate, you have to have a compelling reason,” said Lawlor, who supports same-sex marriage.