Legislators' vote due on same-sex measure

With a forceful opinion that leaves no doubt about its November decision to legalize gay marriage, the Supreme Judicial Court eliminated any wiggle room for a very nervous political establishment to deal with what is perhaps the most politically and emotionally charged issue that has come to Beacon Hill in decades.

Legislators have run out of options, and they seem to be in turmoil. As early as next week, they may have to vote for or against a constitutional amendment that would bar same-sex marriages, a tough prospect for even those who oppose gay marriage but are averse to amending the state constitution to restrict rights. No one on Beacon Hill yesterday had a clear idea of what would happen or even if the Legislature would go forward with its vote on the amendment on Wednesday.

"There's a lot of anxiety out there," said Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, minutes after he announced the SJC opinion in the Senate chambers. The Senate had sought the opinion in hopes that the court would give the lawmakers the option of enacting a civil-union statute similar to the one adopted in Vermont.

Travaglini huddled for more than an hour with his top leadership team yesterday and could find no consensus on whether to go forward with Wednesday's vote on the proposed amendment. "There's a million different opinions about what to do," said one senator.

The Senate president will put the issue to the 34-member Democratic caucus today, but no one is predicting what the decision will be.

Almost everyone at the State House was either avoiding the media or talking off the record. Governor Mitt Romney issued a short statement, as did Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, who had suggested that the original SJC opinion offered room for a civil-union law. Both refused to make themselves available to the media.

Reilly has said he supports civil unions instead of gay marriage, but said he will enforce the court's decision. In his statement, he said the court has "clearly spoken" and vowed that as the chief law enforcement officer he will uphold the law.

Romney -- who had banked on putting in place a strong domestic partner compromise, just short of civil unions, while also pushing the marriage amendment -- now faces the prospect that, beginning May 17, city and town halls will be issuing civil marriage licenses to homosexuals. It will be national news.

He is caught between what he believes should be some sort of fair treatment for gays and the harsh realities of politics. At stake are his national ambitions in a Republican Party that has little patience with liberal social policy.

Yesterday, Romney reiterated his support for the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and seemed to escalate his rhetoric about taking the issue to the voters.

"We've heard from the court, but not from the people," he said. "The people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage."

House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran -- a strong opponent in the past of civil unions, gay marriage, and domestic-partner benefits -- was all but silent. He issued a two-sentence statement saying he would study the decision and refrain from comment until "I have thought through the options." His role could be crucial because the House, with its 160 members, dominates the 40-member Senate when the Legislature meets jointly as a constitutional convention.

Meanwhile, the legislative leadership and the rank-and-file members seemed stunned. "This is a real collision with reality," said state Representative James J. Marzilli Jr. "We as an institution will have to make a decision one way or other. But don't ask me to predict."