Tactics honed as debate nears on banning gay marriage

As state lawmakers gird for the upcoming debate on a proposed ban on same-sex marriage, activists on both sides are busy honing their tactics, some of them overt, some of them below the radar.

Married same-sex couples and their supporters, for example, showed up at legislators' State House offices yesterday to hand out bouquets of hydrangea, roses, and buplerum to mark the two-year anniversary of the day gay weddings became legal. The bouquets are as much a lobbying tool as they are a celebratory gift.

Lawmakers are scheduled to vote July 12 on whether to advance a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex weddings in 2008. At least 50 lawmakers each in this legislative session and the 2007-2008 session have to approve the amendment before it goes on the ballot.

In addition to the flowers, gay-rights groups are canvassing door to door across the state to pressure legislators. Married gay couples and activists have staked out more than 50 town meetings in communities with undecided lawmakers. The group MassEquality now has 13 affiliates working around Massachusetts.

''It's a very field-intensive effort," said Marc Solomon, campaign director for MassEquality.

Opponents of gay marriage, meanwhile, are doing much the same thing. The Massachusetts Family Institute, a sponsor of the proposed amendment, is also lobbying lawmakers to make sure the 50-vote threshold is reached.

The group's president, Kris Mineau, was in the State House yesterday. The group is also organizing the 170,000 people it says signed a petition to get the gay-marriage ban on the 2008 ballot.

''We'll be working with our constituents to make sure their voices are heard loud and clear," Mineau said in a phone interview this week.

Aside from the obvious and visible lobbying, both sides are studying up on a host of procedural moves that could derail the amendment before a vote.

It's hard to find anyone openly advocating such tactics, but various scenarios are being discussed privately by strategists around the State House, and some supporters of same-sex marriage would be happy to see one of them play out.

One possibility was raised last week in the newspaper Bay Windows by House majority leader John H. Rogers, an outspoken opponent of gay marriage who caused a stir on Beacon Hill by his surprise announcement that he would not support the amendment.

Rogers outlined a scenario in which enough amendment opponents skip the July 12 Constitutional Convention that it wouldn't have the participants it needs to legally meet.

He even predicted that they will be singing songs on the State House steps.

''At this point, if I had to guess," Rogers was quoted as saying, ''that's what happens."

That prompted observers to wonder: Does Rogers know something? Was he just speaking off the cuff? (Rogers has declined to be interviewed this week.)

Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said there has been ''no serious discussion about that strategy."

''The gay community is fully expecting and preparing for a vote on the merits of this issue, unfortunately," Isaacson said.

But state Representative Philip Travis, a leading opponent of gay marriage, doesn't trust the other side. He said that he's been doing research on possible tactics that could kill the amendment and that he has a few tactics of his own.

''I think they will play dirty pool," said Travis, a Democrat from Rehoboth.

Travis has reason to want the amendment to reach the floor: Activists on both sides agree that as it stands today, opponents of gay marriage have more than 50 lawmakers on their side.

''My gut says that we don't have the votes," Solomon said.

Mineau said his side is heartened by its vote counts, but he declined to share them, saying only that ''we have a very comfortable margin by which to approve this amendment."

As for other tactics, lawmakers could adjourn the convention before reaching the gay-marriage question, which is at the bottom of a crowded agenda that includes, among other things, a measure to mandate universal healthcare. Adjournment would require just a simple majority of legislators, and some say there are easily that many who would be happy to see the amendment die.

Representative Alice K. Wolf, a Cambridge Democrat who also supports gay marriage, said she would prefer to see the amendment defeated by a vote on the floor.

''There are probably 10 different parliamentary ways that one can operate, but by and large I think, if I got what I wanted, the issue would come up and be voted down," she said.

Governor Mitt Romney supports the amendment. Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's communications director, said in an e-mail yesterday that it would be ''a profound injustice if procedural trickery is used" to sidestep a vote.

''Legislators get paid to vote," he said. ''That's what the job entails, and it would be ironic if the people were denied their right to vote because their legislators didn't bother to cast a vote of their own."

Perhaps the biggest wild card is what Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, who presides at the Constitutional Convention, will do. Anyone who has closely followed the gay-marriage debate in recent years remembers vividly when former Senate president Thomas F. Birmingham did not allow a similar measure to be voted on in 2002.

Travaglini had promised to allow debate on past proposals to ban gay marriage, but he's made no such promise for this one.

His spokeswoman, Ann Dufresne, said this week that the reason the convention was delayed from its original date, May 10, to July 12 was so lawmakers could focus on the budget and other pressing bills.

''We hope that by doing so, we'll have enough of an opportunity to turn our focus on the items that are on the [convention] agenda," she said.

Mineau said he is concerned that his opponents will employ a tactical move, but he said he trusts that Travaglini will allow a vote.

''We're looking forward to that date," he said.

Scott Helman can be reached at shelman@globe.com.