The social and religious questions over gay marriage galvanized supporters and opponents for three years. Now, with the Legislature facing a final chance today to put the question to the voters, the debate centers on another question: Are lawmakers obliged to let citizens make direct decisions about civil rights issues?

The state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled last week that the Legislature has defied the state constitution by refusing to vote on the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage. But the court also said it cannot compel the Legislature to act.

Opponents of gay marriage - and some of its supporters - agree that the constitution requires the Legislature to decide whether to send the proposed amendment to voters in 2008. But others say parliamentary maneuvering that has held off the vote are a legitimate part of the legislative process.

"The Massachusetts Constitution does not require the legislators to vote," said Taylor Flynn, who teaches law at Western New England College. "It is set up so that the legislators will debate the issue, which they have."

At the Nov. 9 constitutional convention, 109 legislators voted to recess before coming to the proposed ballot question. They reconvene today, the last day of their session. Observers believe that the recess essentially means death to the initiative. The Legislature has been challenged by two lawsuits. The first, led by Gov. Mitt Romney asked the Supreme Judicial Court to bypass the legislature and place the question on the ballot.

The other, filed in federal court by the anti-gay marriage group VoteOnMarriage.org, sought damages against legislators who voted for recess.

At present, the political and legal maneuvering over the vote seem beyond a central point. Recent polls suggests that although the majority of those in the Bay State want to vote on the issue, more than 60 percent would vote against a gay marriage ban.

Pollster Gerry Chervinsky, president of KRC/Communications Research, says that a majority of people will continue to support gay marriage. With gay marriage part of the state landscape since 2004, few see it as a threat to the institution of traditional marriage.

"The most important thing is that citizens say they would vote to support gay marriage," Chervinsky said. "Then, whether they want to vote or not is a moot issue."

But gay marriage opponents believe the question must be put to the voters.

"The issue really is about democracy," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute and spokesman for VoteOnMarriage.org. "Democracy decides public policy."

On the other side of the issue, Gary Buseck, legal director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), said legislators have a duty to judge whether a question deserves a public vetting.

Buseck gave the theoretical example of a petition calling for a vote to reinstate slavery. "We would hope legislators would say, 'That's crazy!' " he said.

He wonders when it will end. "A very tiny group of people - well-funded - can keep throwing an issue into the face of the people that they don't care about," Buseck said.

There have been two prior attempts to amend the state constitution regarding gay marriage.

One was a citizen initiative ignored by the 2002 Legislature. The other was filed by Rep. Philip Travis, D-Rehoboth. It was passed in 2004 after members amended it to allow for civil unions. The amendment was defeated the next year by a wide vote.

The current citizen initiative, which collected a record 170,000 signatures last year, proposes a constitutional amendment that would limit the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman.

It does not address civil unions. But it would not revoke the more than 8,000 licenses already given to homosexual couples since gay marriage was implemented in May 2004.

The petition's supporters are invoking a section of the constitution added in 1918 that allows citizens to sidestep the majority of the Legislature. Under the petition process, only 50 of the 200 state legislators are needed to approve the petition in two consecutive years before a constitutional question can reach the ballot.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruling notwithstanding, there are two interpretations of that section of the constitution. Some see it as an avenue to direct democracy. Others say the Legislature is meant to act as a filter to sift any questions before they reach the citizens.

"It's not impossible to have the majority have a say in affecting some civil rights issues by amending the constitution, but it's purposely made difficult," Flynn said. "The reason is that there is no higher authority in the land (than the constitution)."

Flynn said it was a mistake to think that a constitutional change is as simple as normal legislation. She pointed to the historic national issues of slavery and Prohibition as examples of how difficult it can be to alter the constitution.

Flynn credits the framers of the Massachusetts Constitution, John Adams among them, with a deliberate intention: "to make sure that the majority doesn't just trample on the rights of minorities."

She is unsurprised by the polling numbers, suggesting that the citizens of the Bay State have been on a learning curve since gay marriage was approved in the courts.

"People saw that heterosexual marriage didn't crumble," Flynn said. "The sky didn't fall."

David Yas, publisher and editor-in-chief of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, acknowledges that an opposite argument could be made.

"Let the people decide,' has a certain charm to it - on the surface," Yas said.

But he agrees with Flynn's interpretation. Civil rights and taxes are two areas where Yas said a direct vote could be counter-productive.

"There are plenty of ballot initiatives that have died in a similar fashion," he said. "This was hardly some sort of cowardly pushing aside of constitutional values."

Still, Yas sees room for interpretation.

"Different legislators may interpret their duty differently," he said. "I think that's their prerogative."

It was widely believed in November that more than 50 legislators would vote to put the amendment on the 2008 state ballot. That would be enough to push it through for another vote next year.

But that small number of lawmakers was in essence overridden by the simple majority - 101 legislators - required to call a recess.

Legislators were not in perfect agreement about what their votes - whether to recess, or not - meant. None of the legislators interviewed for this report were willing to predict what might happen today.

Some legislators, such as Sen. Marc Pacheco, D-Taunton, voted against recessing, but said they would vote against the ballot question.

"We do not have a direct democracy," Pacheco said.

He said that citizens have the right to petition their legislators, but then the Legislature acts as a filter to determine whether to put a question on the ballot. Pacheco says the Legislature should vote - up or down - on the issue.

But his support of gay marriage is firm.

"My vote will always be against any movement to take away existing rights from any group," Pacheco said.

Sen. Jarrett Barrios, D-Cambridge, disagrees with the notion of putting the amendment to a vote.

"There is no difference between procedure and substance," he said.

He supports any vote that will keep discrimination off the ballot, including the vote to recess.

Barrios, the only married gay member of the Legislature, said the choice of whom to marry is one of the most personal choices in life. Although he believes most citizens would support gay marriage, he is concerned about a potentially nasty campaign if the question went to a vote. And he says civil rights issues should not be tested at the ballot box.

"I, for one, will look forward going on and voting again to end the constitutional convention before this vote is taken up because it has no place in our commonwealth," Barrios said. "Our constitution has no place for discrimination."

Other legislators have taken a hands-off approach: wanting to leave the issue to the voters. Among them is Sen. Richard Moore, D-Uxbridge, whose letter to inquiring constituents spells out his position.

"Such a dramatic change to the commonwealth's social compact must be approved by those who make up that compact, the voting citizens of Massachusetts - not a court, not 200 legislators, and not the governor," he wrote.

Travis agrees. He called the recess a "charade." If allowed the opportunity, he will cast his vote, possibly his last before retirement, to approve a ballot question.