BOSTON, Mass. (AP) — Massachusetts voters could be placed in the unprecedented position of stripping civil rights from fellow citizens if legislative opponents of the gay marriage decision succeed in putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November 2006.

While other states have adopted constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman to counter pro-gay marriage court decisions, those took effect before marriage licenses were issued to any same-sex couples.

In Massachusetts, voters might not be able to weigh in on an amendment until more than two years after gay couples become eligible for wedlock, which could occur in mid-May under the recent decision.

“Then we have the physical and logistical question of spending taxpayer dollars to hire government lawyers to forcibly divorce families who don’t want to be divorced,” said Sen. Cheryl Jacques (D-Needham), who will become leader of the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights organization, in January.

In the hours after the Supreme Judicial Court decision was released, Gov. Mitt Romney and several other opponents of gay marriage focused on a constitutional amendment as the one certain tool they had to reclaim marriage as a heterosexual-only institution.

The ramifications of what such an amendment might mean for those couples who get married in the interim was one of many legal questions percolating throughout the state and nation in the wake of the high court’s decision legalizing gay marriage.

While gay rights advocates and legal scholars argued that the court decision instructs the state to recognize nothing short of gay marriage, Gov. Mitt Romney said that he believes the decision allows for Vermont-style civil unions.

“I believe their decision indicates that a provision which provides benefits, obligations, rights and responsibilities which are consistent with marriage but perhaps could be called by a different name would be in conformity with their decision,” Romney said. “Under that opinion, I believe a civil union type provision would be sufficient.”

House Speaker Thomas Finneran of Boston, a socially conservative Democrat who opposes gay marriage, remained silent on the issue, but one of his top lieutenants and judicial leader said he hoped that a civil union-type solution could be worked out.

“I’m hopeful that an interpretation of a ruling would allow us to do that,” said Rep. Eugene O’Flaherty (D-Chelsea), chairman of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee and likely organizer of any legislative response. “I think that would be wise public policy and within the purview of the Legislature.”

At the heart of the confusion is the 180-day stay contained within the court decision. Was it designed solely to give the Legislature time to bring the statutes into conformity with the decision? Or, as many speculated, was it a concession to one of the judges who agreed to join the slim 4-3 majority only if the Legislature was given some leeway, no matter how slight, to weigh in on a matter of public policy?

“I think that there is deliberate ambiguity left in at the end of the opinion that is meant to float indirectly the idea of civil unions,” said Paul Martinek, editor of Lawyers Weekly USA. “I think clearly the SJC could have simply closed the door on any option other than gay marriage if they had wanted to. I think they needed to get a fourth vote.”

Senate President Robert Travaglini (D-Boston) said that one of several options before the Legislature is to ask the court for an advisory opinion on what exactly the decision allows the state to do.

If the Legislature does nothing by the end of the 180-day period, in mid-May, Massachusetts will become the first state in the country to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

Less certain is what would happen if the Legislature pursues the constitutional amendment, which would require approval by the Legislature by the end of 2004, a second vote of approval during the 2005-2006 session, and endorsement by the voters in November 2006.

The Legislature delayed a vote on an anti-gay marriage amendment during a constitutional convention earlier this month. It is next scheduled to consider the amendment in February. The Legislature defeated a similar measure last year on a procedural vote.

Leaders in Hawaii and Alaska pursued the constitutional amendment route after courts there indicated they were heading toward a legalization of gay marriage. In each case, the amendment took effect before the legal action was complete or any marriage licenses were issued.

If gay marriages become legal in Massachusetts next spring, and a constitutional amendment banning them is approved in 2006, those couples would either face a de facto divorce — if the amendment was retroactively applied — or become a special class of married gay couples, with future generations unable to follow suit.

Beyond the legal questions, political observers said it would be much more difficult for supporters of the amendment to convince voters to strip gay couples of rights they already have rather than simply asking them not to extend them the rights in the first place.

“I cannot imagine a single Massachusetts resident who would want to see their taxpayer dollars spent on breaking up families,” said Jacques.