Round 3 on gay marriage today

When state lawmakers convene today in a bid to settle the fight over a constitutional ban on gay marriage, they will walk into the most daunting day of parliamentary maneuvering, strategizing, and voting in modern Beacon Hill history.

Lawmakers, spent after two previous sessions this year, may cast anywhere from three to a dozen votes over the next three days on a dizzying array of amendments and amendments to amendments.

The measure facing the shortest distance to passage, sponsored by Senate leaders, would ban same-sex marriage but create civil unions with many of the rights and benefits of civil matrimony. But if it can't attract a majority of legislators, any number of rival proposals could win the day.

Any of the measures, if advanced this week and again in the 2005-06 legislative session, would give voters a chance to decide the future of gay marriage in Massachusetts on the November 2006 ballot. On the other hand, if supporters of the Supreme Judicial Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage can gather enough sympathizers, they stand an excellent chance of blocking any amendment put forth.

"This is the endgame, crunch time," said Representative Michael E. Festa, a Melrose Democrat who hopes to defeat all amendments on the table. "I am so excited about this, but I don't want to blow it. We are dealing with powerful forces on the other side. There are crosscurrents, and knowing we want to win, we have to use every tactic at our disposal."

While no credible voice on Beacon Hill would dare predict how the final vote will go, it is clear to all 199 lawmakers involved that the stakes are extremely high.

The Legislature will conduct its divisive debate with Election Day eight months away, and advocacy groups have begun marshaling troops, appealing to voters, and raising cash to punish lawmakers who oppose their views.

Several moderate Democrats, most notably Senate Ways and Means Chairwoman Therese Murray of Plymouth, realize that their reelection hopes may hinge on the Legislature's ability to pass a proposed ballot measure banning gay marriage. Twenty-two unified Republicans in the House have much to fear, despite their small numbers in the Democrat-dominated Legislature. After all, they may end up casting the decisive votes for the leadership measure sponsored by Senate President Robert E. Travaglini that would ban gay marriage and create civil unions. Or they could vote against it and let gay marriages take effect unchallenged May 17.

Travaglini's relationship with House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran also hangs in the balance. If the speaker breaks with the top senator -- most likely by trying to split a Travaglini-backed amendment into two ballot questions, one banning gay marriage, the other creating civil unions -- it could poison their relations. That could affect decisions over the budget and other state business.

Finneran, in a brief interview, would not say whether he would continue to back the measure he sponsored with Travaglini, but said, "My conversations with the Senate president, I always treat them as private."

Travaglini, also interviewed briefly, said he met with Finneran on Thursday and emerged "confident that the support that we received collectively in the last Constitutional Convention will maintain itself. I am hopeful we will reach a conclusion when we reconvene on Monday," he said, adding that he has no reason to doubt Finneran's resolve.

The Senate president would not discuss what might happen if the Legislature cannot reach a workable consensus on the issue by Wednesday, the last day scheduled for the constitutional debate.

Three major proposals to ban gay marriage are on the table when debate commences today, each requiring a minimum of three roll-call votes to move on to the next legislative session. If 101 legislators pass one of the amendments, lawmakers must approve it again in the 2005-2006 session before voters can decide the issue at the ballot box in November 2006.

One measure is the proposal sponsored by Travaglini and Senate Republican leader Brian P. Lees to ban gay marriage and allow civil unions for gay couples. A version of that amendment, which Finneran cosponsored, won majority support in the last Constitutional Convention, which ended March 11.

Another measure, sponsored by Republican Representative Vinny M. deMacedo of Plymouth, would offer voters two ballot questions, one banning gay marriage, the other establishing civil unions with all the rights and benefits of marriage -- essentially, Travaglini's measure split in two.

A third proposal, written by Paul Loscocco, a Holliston Republican, would ban gay marriage and direct the Legislature to create and define civil unions at some point.

Those items will come up for a vote only if others sponsored by Travaglini and Senate allies are thwarted first. If Travaglini can muster the votes for the amendments he backs, deMacedo's and Loscocco's don't stand a chance.

Many conservative lawmakers are furious that Travaglini engineered the situation to make sure his own measures come up first. Critics from both parties, such as House Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. or House Ways and Means Vice Chairman Peter J. Larkin, contend that Travaglini has acted like former Senate president Thomas M. Birmingham, who in 2002 shut down the first constitutional debate over gay marriage to prevent a ban from being passed.

While many lawmakers appear to have qualms about Travaglini's amendment, the East Boston Democrat has several weapons to advance the legislation to the next legislative session.

For one, Travaglini controls the constitutional debate, so if a lawmaker attempted to split his measure Travaglini would probably rule a move out of order. Also, he knows that the Legislature's firmest gay-marriage supporters -- there are about 50 of them -- will probably back his amendment right up until a final, conclusive vote, because they prefer it to others waiting in the wings.

When that final vote comes up, Travaglini can probably bank on the House Republicans, 22 of whom have voted as a cohesive bloc, to support his amendment, reasoning that getting an initiative to the ballot is better than nothing.

Governor Mitt Romney, a foe of gay marriage, is considering a legal strategy to ask the state Supreme Judicial Court to stay its landmark ruling legalizing gay marriage if the Legislature sends an amendment to the next legislative session.

Jones, the top Republican in the House, conceded that he and his GOP colleagues have a dilemma. But in the end, he speculated, the Republican caucus may fracture -- some voting with Travaglini and some refusing.

"In the end, this is all about `What do I feel comfortable sending to the voters?' " said Jones, of North Reading. "I, personally, would be very reluctant to send this current compromise forward, and there is a lot of reluctance in the caucus. If we do support it, it would not be with any great sense of pride."

Gay-marriage backers worry that, if deMacedo or Finneran succeeds in forcing a vote on two distinct ballot questions, foes of expanded rights for same-sex couples could later kill the civil-union measure, leaving gays and lesbians with nothing.

Jones hoped to dispel such fears, saying he and the 21 like-minded House Republicans promise to "send both forward or kill both together." "We're not going to play games here," he said.

On the last gay-marriage vote cast by the Legislature, on March 11, the Travaglini compromise measure passed, 121 to 77, as 22 Republicans supported it to make sure the gay-marriage debate stayed alive. If they were to back out Monday, the measure would probably fail to muster the 101 votes needed to survive. With the Republican votes, it probably passes by a comfortable margin.

Assistant Senate Majority Whip Robert A. Havern III, a Democrat who supports same-sex marriage, said he believes the Republicans will ultimately find themselves in the hot seat because, by his count, Travaglini has the support necessary to bring his measure to a final, decisive vote.

"That last vote is where the rubber hits the road," Havern said. "That puts some people in an awkward spot . . . The House Republicans seem to be the key."

Lobbying pressure on all sides has been intense. On Friday, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the legislative arm of the four Bay State dioceses, issued a press release backing any effort to send voters two separate ballot questions, arguing that such a procedure would be less confusing.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force sent 150 volunteers to Burlington and East Boston Saturday, hoping to win over voters.

Gay-marriage lobbyist Arline Isaacson, a constant presence in the State House for the past few months, fretted that some sympathetic legislators are growing weary that some lawmakers may not have the stomach to prevent a ballot question from going to the voters, even if they sympathize with same-sex couples.

"A lot of them are starting to get concerned about the process, and it couldn't happen at a worse time for same-sex couples, who feel their lives are on the line here," Isaacson said.