Travaglini will call convention

Senate President Robert E. Travaglini said yesterday he will convene a long-awaited constitutional convention Wednesday and promised a vote on a proposed amendment to ban gay marriages.

"It is my hope that the debate on this intensely personal issue will be dignified and orderly," said a statement released by Travaglini's office. "As the presiding officer, I will afford everyone an opportunity to be heard, and there will be a vote on the marriage issue."

Aides said it is not clear whether lawmakers will take up the issue immediately at Wednesday's session, because of potential parliamentary maneuvering. Also, seven other proposed amendments are listed above it on the calendar. But Travaglini's press secretary, Ann Dufresne, said he will recall the convention in a "timely manner" if the marriage amendment is not considered Wednesday.

Opponents of gay marriage are confident they will win the vote, particularly if the original amendment -- sponsored by state Representative Philip Travis, a Democrat from Rehoboth -- is changed at the convention to eliminate four words that would also bar civil unions. One House leader said yesterday that amendment supporters had about 109 out of 200 votes, including at least 14 in the 40-member Senate, although not all the votes are solid and the count could change.

"This is wonderful," said Ron Crews, spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, when told of Travaglini's statement. He said his group's lobbying has resulted in a majority coalition for the amendment. "Many are with us on the issue, and others are outraged at the judicial arrogance. . . . We are cautiously optimistic."

The proposed constitutional amendment, as filed by Travis last year, says: "Only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent."

Lawmakers plan to strike the last four words to make it more palatable; they would need a majority vote at the convention to remove the language.

If the amendment passes two consecutive Legislatures, it would go before voters in November 2006. But its intent directly contradicts rulings by the Supreme Judicial Court, which has declared the state's current ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional. The Legislature has been shaken since the SJC issued an advisory opinion Wednesday declaring that a proposed civil unions bill for gay couples was not constitutional.

With the vote pending, the plaintiffs in the original gay marriage case before the Supreme Judicial Court won an impromptu meeting yesterday with Governor Mitt Romney. They emerged upset and unsatisfied, saying that he was not sympathetic to their arguments that their legal case was a civil rights issue. Romney described the session as "very pleasant" and a "good discussion."

Governor Romney is "a very pleasant person, but frankly he just doesn't get it," said Mary Bonauto, the plaintiffs' lead lawyer. Asked what she said to Romney, she said, "With all respect, governor, you are basically advocating discrimination against gay people in this Commonwealth and across this country."

House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, a strong opponent of gay marriage and civil unions, said this week that he is exploring options to block the implementation of the court's November ruling, scheduled for May 17, when gay couples will be issued marriage certificates. He has declined to talk about those options, but he said he is predicting legal chaos if the gay marriages take place and the voters adopt the amendment banning same sex unions in 2006.

Finneran has found an unlikely ally on the issue in Romney, his oft-time political nemesis.

Asked whether he would do anything to stop issuance of marriage licenses, Romney said: "I don't have anything to give you on that front. I intend to follow through with the law of the state as it exists at the time."

The controversy has produced passionate feelings on both sides. Travaglini has felt heat from The Pilot, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston, which has singled out the Senate leader in its last two editions after he suggested he may delay the convention.

Gay marriage opponents are planning a rally at the State House tomorrow. Yesterday, they distributed a videotape to legislators, featuring Harvard Law School professor Mary Ann Glendon and former Boston mayor Raymond L. Flynn, both of whom denounced the SJC ruling.

Some gay-marriage advocates are trying to define their cause as a civil rights issue that should not be subjected to a referendum and political campaign that would precede it.

Opponents of gay marriage and some supporters say the amendment must go to the ballot because only the people of Massachusetts, not four of the seven state Supreme Judicial Court justices, must be the ones to define the institution of marriage.

"The legislators are approaching a civil rights moment," Bonauto said. "Their children and grandchildren are going to want to know how they voted. This is a defining moment for Massachusetts. This is a very important vote, no doubt about it, and people need to think about where they want to be on this very important civil rights question."

Travaglini's made his announcement yesterday just minutes after the meeting Romney held with the plaintiffs in the case that led to the SJC's Nov. 18 decision. The group had gone to Romney's State House office to hold a press conference to complain that he had ignored their request for a meeting. The governor, who had canceled his trip to the Berkshires because of the weather, unexpectedly invited them in.

David Wilson, an African- American who is one of the plaintiffs, said he had pressed Romney, telling him that legalizing gay marriage is a civil rights issue, much like what blacks faced during the civil rights movement.

Wilson said he asked Romney whether racial equality issues should have been put to voter referendums in 1960. He said he told the governor that legalization of interracial marriages would have been defeated.

"I am very upset," Wilson said, his voice shaking. "He represents the leader of our state and represents me as a citizen of this state."

But Romney, who met with reporters in his office after the meeting, rejected the comparison to the battle for racial equality, saying that the debate is over the definition of marriage.

Marriage, he said, "is the foundation of human society, and that is something that the people should decide, not one justice."

Romney was also asked by Julie Goodridge, the lead plaintiff, what he would suggest that she and her partner tell their 8-year- old daughter if he is successful in blocking their marriage.

"I said to him, you know, I'd really like you to think about the impact that anything you do is going to have on our daughter and what you would say to our daughter," Goodridge said.

"And he said, `Well, how old is she?' And I said, `Oh, she's 8.' And he said, `Well, what have you been telling her for the last seven years? Just keep telling her that,' " said Goodridge, as emotions overtook her and her voice cracked.

"In other words, ignore the last year of this historic decision, ignore the fact that she's been so excited that finally her mommy and her mom could be able to get married," Goodridge said.