That means that as of Jan. 1, Oregon will join eight other states that have approved spousal rights in some form for same-sex couples: Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maine, California, Washington and Hawaii. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay couples to marry.

Later this week, word is expected on whether opponents gathered enough signatures to block a gay-rights law that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation — though that effort, as well, appears to be lacking sufficient signatures.

Social-conservative and church groups mounted the signature-gathering drive after the two gay-rights laws were approved by the Democratic-controlled Oregon Legislature with strong backing from Gov. Ted Kulongoski, also a Democrat.

The state's largest gay-rights group called Monday's announcement a "proud day for Oregon."

"In refusing to sign these petitions, Oregonians showed that they aren't interested in rolling back our anti-discrimination laws," said John Hummel, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon.

Sponsors of the referral effort had conceded in recent days that they probably hadn't gotten enough signatures. But they vowed to take another avenue to try to derail the laws — an initiative effort to repeal the laws outright. They would have until next July to collect 82,000 valid signatures to repeal each of the two laws.

"The market is virtually eliminating any Fed move on Oct. 31, due to the Fed minutes," said Tom di Galoma, fixed income analyst at Jefferies & Co. "This has the bears in control." The view that the Fed is on hold sparked heavy overseas selling of Treasurys and Japanese government bonds that continued into the U.S. session.

The stock market had its own interpretation of the Fed minutes, zeroing in on the fact that Fed policy makers were very worried about the rapid deterioration of the credit markets last summer. The Fed cut rates by a half percentage point at its Sept. 18 meeting and equities investors appear to think the bank could order another rate cut at its October meeting. Stocks were a bit lower Wednesday, after rallying sharply Tuesday on the minutes.

In a statement Wednesday, Jacobs cited "multiple health problems" as a factor in Levy's resignation, but did not provide further details.

Levy has been under federal investigation for embellishing his Army service in Vietnam.

"The circumstances surrounding his resignation include multiple health problems, but were precipitated by a pending Federal Department of Veterans Affairs investigation," Jacobs said.

Last fall, the Press of Atlantic City reported that the Vietnam veteran's claims that he was a member of the Green Berets were untrue. He apologized, but federal authorities have been looking into whether the 64-year-old Levy made that claim to increase his veteran's benefit payments.

Jacobs said in the statement that the mayor was in discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about resolving the investigation in a "fair and expeditious" way. Levy allegedly took in about $25,000 in extra benefits payments as a result of the falsification.

No part of the investigation includes allegations of Levy's abuse of his position as mayor, his lawyer said.

Levy served in the United States Army for 20 years, form 1964-1984 and served two tours of duty in Vietnam, from which he received multiple medals, awards and citations, according to Jacobs.

"The pending investigation has called into question two of those awards, neither of which appear to be supported by an appropriate military order," said Jacobs.

Members of the city council had asked a judge to declare the mayor's office vacant and clear the way for the council president to take over as interim mayor.

Levy — who was missing for almost two weeks — was at home after leaving a Somerset County clinic known for treatment of substance abuse and mental health issues, according his lawyer.

Tuesday's revelation about Levy's whereabouts came after a brief conference with a state judge, who scheduled a Friday hearing to discuss a request by a city councilman to declare that the mayor had abandoned his office.

Sallie Mae's lawsuit seeks a declaration that the buyer group has reneged on the merger agreement, that no "material adverse change" has occurred, and that Sallie Mae may terminate the takeover and collect the $900 million.

A material adverse change (MAC) is a condition that could cause a substantial reduction in earnings power and it can give buyers or lenders a "walk right" from their obligations.

The lawsuit is being seen by many as a hard-ball attempt by Sallie Mae to force the buyer group to stick to the original deal, in which the group offered $60 a share, or come up with something closer to it than its revised proposal of $50 a share, or $20.6 billion offer, plus extra payments depending on how the company performed.

"We are prepared to close under the contract the parties signed in April," said Sallie Mae chairman Albert Lord in a statement late on Monday. "Sallie Mae has honored its obligations under the merger agreement. We ask only that the buyer group do the same."  

The court, without comment, denied the bid by 44-year-old Khaled el-Masri, essentially upholding the Bush administration's argument that "state secrets'' would be endangered if the German man's lawsuit against the CIA was allowed to proceed.

It was the first time a case of rendition, often referred to as the out-sourcing of torture, has reached the country's highest court.

El-Masri has maintained he was a victim of mistaken identity when he was picked up by CIA agents in Macedonia on New Year's Eve 2003, then beaten, shackled, drugged and chained to the floor of a so-called "ghost flight'' and sent to a "black site'' prison in Afghanistan.

There he claimed he was tortured and abused for five months before being unceremoniously dumped on a hillside in Albania and told to find his own way home.

The White House has never acknowledged it rendered el-Masri, but his story has been documented in extensive media accounts, backed by European investigations and accepted by the government of German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The only other rendition victim seeking redress in American courts is Canadian telecommunications engineer Maher Arar. Arar was shuttled to a Syrian prison, where he was tortured after being picked up by American authorities at New York's JFK Airport in 2002.

His U.S. lawyer said Arar's appeal of a lower court ruling would proceed in New York on Nov. 9 and pointed to differences in the two cases that could keep the Canadian's case alive.

Maria LaHood said in the el-Masri case, the government argued it cannot even reveal if the German was rendered.

But in the Arar case, the government has acknowledged the Canadian was removed to Syria, she said, but has argued it cannot reveal why.

Washington argues the reason Arar was sent to Syria is a "state secret,'' but LaHood said she will argue on appeal that the reasons are not relevant, only the rendition is at issue.

"This was a real disappointment that the court would not even hear the case and would just defer to the executive,'' she said.

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Opteum Inc. ("Opteum" or the "Company") pursuant or traceable to the Company's September 17, 2004 Initial Public Offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering") or the Company's December 16, 2004 Secondary Offering, and including those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between November 3, 2005 and May 10, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbtklaw.com.

The Complaint charges Opteum and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's IPO and Secondary Offering, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company's interest costs at the time of the IPO and Secondary Offering were substantially increasing; (2) that as a result, the Company's various approaches to risk management did not provide investors reasonable protections against losses; and (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls.

Additionally, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose additional material adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company's integration of Opteum Financial Services, LLC ("OFS") was not proceeding according to plan; (2) that the Company's risk management controls and procedures were incompatible with OFS' risk management controls and procedures; (3) that OFS' loans were designed to produce short-term financial results, which would subject the Company to unreasonable long-term risk and expenses; (4) that the Company had improperly valued and monitored collateral; (5) that the Company had underreported its loan loss reserves; (6) that the Company's book value and projected cash flows were materially overstated; (7) that the Company had failed to adequately hedge its exposure to losses; (8) that the Company and OFS lacked adequate internal and financial controls; (9) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (9) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were false and misleading at all relevant times; and (10) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's guidance about its 2007 financial and operational results were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On May 10, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it reported its first quarter 2007 financial and operational results. The Company reported $12.2 million in negative fair value adjustments to OFS' mortgage servicing rights, $1.3 million in negative fair value adjustments to OFS' residuals, and $8.8 million in asset write downs at OFS. Additionally, the Company revealed that nearly 50 percent of the Company's first quarter loss, or $37.4 million, was attributable to a valuation allowance on OFS' deferred tax assets, nearly 17.5 percent of the loss was attributable to negative fair value adjustments to OFS' mortgage servicing rights and retained interests in securitizations, and slightly more than 10 percent of the loss was attributable to asset write downs at OFS, due in part to the Company's decision to exit the mortgage origination business. Also, the Company revealed that its quarterly loss included $14.1 million in negative fair value adjustments to mortgage loans held for sale and interest rate lock commitments, and hedging losses of $4.6 million. On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $1.37 per share, or over 25 percent, to close on May 11, 2007 at $4.08 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler or to sign up to participate in this action online, please visit http://www.sbtklaw.com.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than November 19, 2007, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.