BOSTON (AP) – Was it a gay-rights victory? Or just a temporary delay of the inevitable?

In the aftermath of this week’s marathon constitutional convention, it was unclear whether the Massachusetts Legislature would be able to forge a majority in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage ban when debate resumes next month.

Two days of impassioned discourse and behind-the-scenes negotiations ended in stalemate, as constantly shifting alliances within the polarized 200-member body made it impossible to cobble together the simple majority necessary to move to the next stage toward amending the state constitution.

Whether the Legislature will reach consensus when it reconvenes March 11 will depend upon what one senator called “the mush in the middle”: the lawmakers who are neither squarely for or against a measure that would strip same-sex couples of the marriage rights granted by the state’s highest court.

Over two days, legislators debated 19 hours, endured frenzied, behind-the-scenes negotiations, and considered – and rejected – three proposed amendments. But throughout it all, the swing votes fluctuated from one side of the issue to another, leaving the amendments’ sponsors just a few votes shy each time of winning a majority. A fourth version, which was on the floor when debate ended midnight Friday, also appeared headed to defeat.

“Sometimes compromises don’t work and that may be what’s in play right here,” said Rep. David Linsky, D-Natick, who opposes banning gay marriage.

When it comes to counting votes, the questions are numerous: Do lawmakers consider a measure that would ban gay marriage, then risk alienating gay-rights supporters? Would inserting some sort of language that would allow for civil unions be enough to win over some of those gay-rights supporters? Or do they carve out language that would require civil unions, and then see support erode among opponents of same-sex marriage?

Still, opponents of gay marriage remained confident that the monthlong adjournment will end with the Legislature supporting an alternative that defines marriage as a heterosexual union and offers same-sex couples at least a hope of some type of civil union benefits.

“There is more than a majority who are ready to approve an amendment to the state constitution that protects marriage,” said Rep. Philip Travis, D-Rehoboth, who sponsored the original constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and provide no civil unions benefits. “There is a not a majority yet who has agreed on how to word civil unions in Massachusetts. I lost the first battle but the war is still on.”

Scrutiny has been focused on the Massachusetts Legislature since November, when the state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.

This turned the spotlight on a constitutional amendment, proposed months earlier, which would define marriage a union between one man and one woman.

To succeed, any amendment must win at least 101 votes this year and during the 2005-2006 legislative session, before it goes to voters for final approval in November 2006.

By that time – unless some lawmakers find a way to get around the court order – gay marriages will have been legal in Massachusetts for more than two years. Under the court’s order, marriages licenses are to be issued to same-sex couples beginning in mid-May.

Making the process even more complex are the November elections, when all 200 seats are up for grabs. If supporters of the ban lose even a few seats at that time, their slim majority could dissipate.

Going into Wednesday’s debate, Sen. Andrea F. Nuciforo Jr., D-Pittsfield, was certain that there were enough votes to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage – an outcome he passionately opposes.

For that reason, he says, he helped craft a new version that would legalize civil unions for gay couples while still banning gay marriage, as conservatives wanted. Nuciforo, like many other opponents of a constitutional amendment, voted for this version when it came up on the floor.

“Many of us who support the SJC ruling believed that was the best we were going to do,” Nuciforo said. That measure failed, however, due to the opposition of conservatives, as did a starker amendment, which offered no promise of civil unions to gay couples.

When that occurred, Nuciforo said, “it became apparent to us that the constitutional convention lacked sufficient support to put anything on the ballot.”

This led to Thursday’s late-night stand by legislative supporter of gay rights, who smelled an unlikely victory. They helped stall debate on a version sponsored by the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate, as Nuciforo and others who had been willing to compromise realized they might not need to.

“The dream situation is when the leaders in both branches and both parties sign on to something,” said Sen. Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford, who opposes an amendment. “On almost any other matter, that would guarantee success. Not only would you have a majority but you have would have an overwhelming majority or unanimity. But when it comes to the fundamentals of human rights and beliefs, everything changes.”

When the Legislature reconvenes, they will continue debate on the apparently doomed bipartisan compromise and then take up a more conservative version, which would legalize some form of civil unions but leave it to the Legislature to determine how those would be defined.

And then, it will be onto the November election, when – win or lose – lawmakers will likely be reminded of stances they took during the constitutional convention.

“There will be some consequences,” said Ron Crews, leader of the Massachusetts Family Institute. “Some legislators are going to have to give an account for their votes.”

AP-ES-02-13-04 1637EST