Three viewpoints produced gridlock

After two days of intense efforts to find a compromise, the Legislature appears to have split into three distinct, seemingly intractable camps over the question of how to deal with the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage.

An analysis of the four major roll call votes at the Legislature's constitutional convention this week shows that an overwhelming majority of the lawmakers, 137 of 199, want to overturn the Nov. 18 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. But the analysis also shows divisions among lawmakers over how to extend protections and benefits to gay couples, divisions that ultimately led to the gridlock and the convention's adjournment until next month.

As a result, unless legislative leaders can capture a few votes from one of the camps, the next round of voting, set for March 11, could end in more gridlock.

The blocs seem to fall into the following philosophical camps:

Define marriage and worry about civil unions later. The largest group of lawmakers, this camp starts with 80 legislators led by House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and Governor Mitt Romney, who insist that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman and who also insist that the place to create civil unions, if anywhere, is in statute, not in the constitution.

This camp also contains another 13 lawmakers from both the House and the Senate who supported every amendment proposal that came up this week, whether or not they guaranteed civil unions for same-sex couples. Many in this category -- such as Senator Marc R. Pacheco, Democrat of Taunton -- said their goal is to put a question on the definition of marriage before voters.

Combined, the two subgroups constitute a group of 93 lawmakers, just 8 shy of the 101 it takes to advance a constitutional amendment. Despite the numbers, Finneran and Romney apparently failed either to woo the votes they needed or to persuade Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, who controls the convention, to allow for a vote, once they had a majority coalition.

Define marriage, but only if civil unions are written into the constitution. Made up of 44 lawmakers following Travaglini and Senate minority leader Brian P. Lees, this group refused twice to back amendments leaving the fate of Vermont-style civil unions in doubt. All in this camp backed a plan that would have banned marriage and written civil unions into the constitution. The measure died in a 104-to-94 vote.

Supports gay marriage. This group wants to let the SJC ruling stand, either by defeating all amendments outright, by using parliamentary strategy, or by adjourning the convention. The second-largest bloc at the convention, this group of 55 legislators appears to be dead-set against overturning the ruling. However, those in the group appear to disagree over how to achieve that end.

Thirty-two of the 55, for example, joined a gambit devised by gay rights lobbyists Wednesday to pass the compromise Travaglini-Lees amendment, even though they hoped to defeat it at a later stage of the convention. After that strategy failed, these lawmakers all voted to adjourn the convention, another motion that failed.

Twelve others voted against all amendments and in favor of ending the convention without a vote.

Another 11 in the promarriage camp -- including two powerhouses, House majority leader Salvatore F. DiMasi and House whip Lida E. Harkins -- voted against everything placed before them in the first two days of the convention, hoping they could simply defeat any amendment proposal. It appeared that only five lawmakers shifted their philosophical positions during the two-day session. Four of them, all House Democrats, left Finneran's group in the end and voted against a proposal backed by Representative Philip Travis, Democrat of Rehoboth, that would have defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman, but held out no promise of civil unions. They were Robert K. Coughlin of Dedham; Robert A. DeLeo of Winthrop; Thomas J. O'Brien of Kingston; and Shirley Owens-Hicks of Boston. A fifth lawmaker, Representative Stephen J. Buoniconti, appears to have been won over by those advocating for a constitutional definition of marriage with no promise of civil unions. Globe correspondent Bill Dedman contributed to this report.