Bid seen weakening to ban gay marriage

The slim majority that supported the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage last year has been thrown into doubt with the recent resignations of three legislators who oppose gay marriage and a net increase of two gay-marriage supporters in the crop of newly elected legislators.

With the start of the new legislative session, a Globe analysis indicates that supporters of gay marriage appear to be gaining ground in their effort to defeat the proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The Legislature voted 105 to 92 for the amendment in March, but it would have to pass one more roll call to reach the 2006 ballot for voter consideration.

One leading gay-marriage opponent said he sensed a shift against the constitutional ban.

"I will not be surprised if the Legislature defeats that amendment," said Ron Crews, former president of the Massachusetts Family Institute and a leader in the social conservative movement to ban same-sex marriages in Massachusetts. Some gay-marriage opponents are against the amendment because it would create civil unions for gay couples in addition to banning marriage.

Gay-marriage opponents who want to pass the ban need 101 votes in the 200-member Legislature. They cleared that hurdle by just four votes in March.

Lawmakers and advocates say the vote is too close to call. But the Globe analysis of newly sworn-in legislators indicates that gay-marriage forces added a net of at least two votes in the fall legislative elections. In addition, three gay-marriage opponents have resigned in recent weeks: former House speaker Thomas M. Finneran and state representatives Brian Golden and Peter Larkin. Special elections for the seats are set for March and April, and supporters of gay marriage are closely scrutinizing the candidates to determine who to support.

Advocates for gay marriage and those working to reverse the 14-month-old court ruling legalizing same-sex unions agree that a confluence of events over the last year has significantly changed the political landscape around the controversial issue. But unlike in other states, where same sex-marriage has caused a backlash, the circumstances appear to favor marriage supporters in Massachusetts, the only state that has legalized gay marriage.

The events include: a fall campaign for Legislature in which the issue was not a major factor in most races; a new House speaker who supports gay marriage; US Senator John F. Kerry's loss in the presidential election, eliminating the need for Bay State Democrats to provide him with political cover on the issue; and a smooth implementation of the court ruling legalizing marriage.

"There's a new dynamic here," House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, a Democrat, said in an interview. "Gay marriage has been in effect for a long time, and the world hasn't collapsed. That might be an influence."

Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, who presides over the joint session of the Legislature known as a Constitutional Convention, has not set a date for consideration of the amendment, but it is widely expected to take place sometime after the special elections. Travaglini and Senate minority leader Brian P. Lees, a East Longmeadow Republican, cosponsor the amendment, which would ban gay marriage but allow gay civil unions.

While lawmakers and advocates are not ready to make a firm prediction, supporters of gay marriage are expected to get a significant boost from what many insiders say is a group of at least a half-dozen lawmakers who initially voted for the amendment but are giving serious thought to switching their positions. Even Lees, one of the cosponsors, said last fall he was reconsidering his position.

Those lawmakers who are considering changing their positions had voted for the amendment either because they were worried about a political backlash from their constituents or because of their loyalty to House and Senate leaders, according to lawmakers and strategists. But the political turmoil that engulfed the State House last winter never spilled over into the legislative elections. In fact, the only backlash came against two antigay marriage incumbent House members who were defeated by advocates for gay marriage.

Much will depend on whether Travaglini prevails upon some of his chief lieutenants and Lees sticks with him and vote for the proposed constitutional amendment one more time. For example, three top Senate leaders -- majority leader Frederick E. Berry of Peabody, Joan M. Menard of Somerset, and Ways and Means chairwoman Therese Murray of Plymouth are considering changing their positions and vote against the amendment, their colleagues say. Neither could be reached for comment last week.

Adding to the mix are the votes of a handful of new lawmakers who have replaced gay-marriage opponents. For example, state Representative Stephen Canessa, a Democrat, beat Mark Howland, an opponent of gay marriage, in the party primary.

Canessa plans to vote against the gay-marriage ban. "It's an issue of civil rights and allowing each and every one of our citizens to be treated fairly. Everyone should have access to same rights and privileges of their fellow citizens," said Canessa, 24, the youngest new legislator.

Last March, reacting to the Supreme Judicial Court decision that legalized gay marriages, opponents marshaled enough forces to win the initial approval of the amendment. As national and international media descended on Beacon Hill, the final vote was made after three tumultuous sessions during which the House and Senate met as a Constitutional Convention.

At the time, the issue was caught up in the presidential campaign. One driving force to pass the measure was a desire by Democratic leaders to give Kerry political cover nationally by having his home state approve a gay marriage ban. Kerry came out in favor of the state amendment, though he opposed a US constitutional amendment. That political strategy has disappeared with Kerry's defeat.

Despite what appear to be gains by the pro-marriage force, the chances that the final approval will be defeated is still not clear.

Not all gay activists are convinced the amendment will be blocked. "There is no question we do not have the votes right now," said Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. Isaacson said advocates are just gearing up to work the new Legislature. "We don't doubt we have a shot at winning but we are far from it right now," she said.

The final outcome is far from clear, particularly if eight social conservatives who also oppose the amendment because it creates a system of civil unions for gay couples continue to vote against the measure.

So far, that bloc of conservatives is showing no signs of moving toward supporting the amendment and would like to hold out for a strict constitutional ban on marriage with no references to civil unions. Crews, while predicting the amendment's likely demise, showed no signs that he would work to save it. "If that happens, I'm not going to cry about that," Crews said.

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said the big question will be whether all social conservatives will continue to oppose the amendment or will move to support it. "It's a toss up right now," he said of the vote count.

He said the institute is trying to decide whether to hope for the amendment's defeat and filed a citizens petition for an amendment that would ban gay marriage and not create a system of civil unions. "That is something that is still in the decision mode," he said.

Globe correspondents Benjamin N. Gedan and Janette Neuwahl contributed to this report.