Military-Gay Issue May Stall Family Bill : Legislation: A maneuver by Senate Republicans could turn the proposed law into the first gridlocked measure of the year.

WASHINGTON —  Congressional passage of the family and medical leave bill, expected to be an early sign that the legislative logjam of the past session had been broken, has run into turbulence. The unexpected problem: continuing controversy over proposals to open the military to homosexuals.

Democrats had hoped to rush the family leave bill through Congress and place it on President Clinton’s desk this week as a sign that the Democratic-controlled Congress was ready to work with the new Democratic president.

But a snag emerged Tuesday when Republican opponents of allowing homosexuals in the armed forces said they want the gays-in-the-military issue put to a Senate vote. If Democrats block any such vote, some Republicans are prepared to offer a host of amendments to the family leave bill, bogging it down in an emotional debate the President’s leading supporters want to avoid.

“All we want is a vote,” said Senate Minority Whip Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.).

The family leave bill, which would require large firms to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to workers who want time off for childbirth or a family illness, was twice vetoed by former President George Bush.

Until this week, the legislation was expected to pass easily in the Senate. In the House, where the Democratic leadership has tighter control over amendments, the bill was assured of swift approval.

Although GOP leaders temporarily delayed offering any amendment to the family leave bill, several Republicans said they would have no alternative if Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.), as expected, denies them a separate vote on a gay ban.

Aides said Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) planned to call for the separate vote this week. Democrats were expected to reject that request, setting the stage for the GOP amendment strategy.

There were signs of disarray in the GOP ranks, however. “We’re basically trying to get our ducks in a row,” said Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), and Dole told the Senate: “I don’t want anyone to have the impression we’re holding up the family leave bill.”

But some Democrats remained skeptical despite Dole’s assurance and one senator warned that Republican strategy might backfire if the public perceived it as a way to block action on the family leave legislation.

“If anything gets people stirred up, it’s gridlock,” said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). “This (Republican move) could boomerang very, very fast.”

Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the Senate should defer any action on gays-in-military issues until his panel conducts hearings, now scheduled for March, and hears from veterans’ groups, gay organizations and health care experts on the controversy.

The plan, announced last week, temporarily bars the Pentagon from discharging homosexuals but allows the military to take other, less severe actions against them until a final decision on the issue is made later this year.

The maneuvering overshadowed Senate debate on the family leave bill, which has won the support of some conservative Republicans.

Proponents argued that requiring firms with more than 50 employees to provide unpaid leave to employees for childbirth or illness would be a humane and low-cost answer to a pressing need now that so many mothers of young children are in the work force.

Opponents, however, said it was wrong for the federal government to mandate benefits for employees, no matter how desirable, and predicted the legislation would restrict the creation of new jobs.

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), floor manager for the bill, recalled Bush’s veto of a similar measure last fall and read a letter from Clinton which said he would sign the legislation.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), making her first speech in the Senate, supported the bill.

“The fact is that the day when one parent could stay home with the children is over for most American families,” Feinstein said. “The harsh reality today is that women work because they must earn a living. . . . Today we have an opportunity to allow a mother to keep her job and care for a sick child or an elderly parent.”