HARRISBURG - In the first major legislative action since the primary election shook up its ranks, the state House yesterday did not take up property-tax relief or lobbying disclosure - issues voters have complained most vocally about - but instead approved a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

By a vote of 136-61, which included significant Democratic support, the House approved a proposal that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The bill will likely be voted on in the Senate by the end of the month, a Senate Republican spokesman said.

A constitutional amendment requires passage in the legislature in two consecutive sessions and then approval by voters in a statewide referendum, which could come as early as spring 2007.

High-pitched debate on the House floor dragged on for more than three hours as supporters cited a need to protect the traditional definition of marriage, while opponents said such an amendment would stigmatize the state as intolerant and discriminatory.

"This is a very sad day for this great institution and the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which historically led the way to greater liberty and civil rights in this country," said Rep. Babette Josephs (D., Phila.).

Proponents argued that "activist courts" have threatened the institution of marriage and the state laws, including Pennsylvania's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which seek to protect it.

"Over the past 10 years, there has been a slow but steady erosion of the clear, crisp lines that define marriage throughout the nation," said Rep. Scott Boyd (R., Lancaster), citing the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and similar court decisions.

Nineteen other states have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Pennsylvania is one of 26 states that have such a ban written in statute.

The impassioned floor speeches in the state Capitol echoed the debate that ensued in the U.S. Senate yesterday, where a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage appeared headed for defeat.

One Democratic lawmaker compared House leaders to President Bush, who lobbied vigorously over the last few days for the passage of the federal amendment, saying both were trying to take the public's mind off other problems.

"I am stunned we are talking about this issue today when we need to be dealing with substance; we need to talk about minimum wage, we need to talk about property tax," said Dan Frankel (D., Allegheny). "George Bush wants to divert attention [from other issues]. I would suggest that is why the majority party wants to proffer this legislation."

But one of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Daryl Metcalf (R., Butler), said the issue was important in his district, where a survey he took showed the amendment had 80 percent support.

Proponents denied the amendment would affect the rights of gay couples or unmarried individuals, but rather would halt the "judicial tyranny" going on in other states.

"We have what is called an institution of marriage. Today we are here, unbelievably, defending the institution of marriage," said Rep. Sam Rohrer (R., Berks), one of the bill's sponsors. "Our frame of government is under attack."

The vote comes as courts in New Jersey and New York state are poised to rule in cases that would make same-sex unions legal, as they are in Massachusetts.

And judges in several states, most recently Georgia, have invalidated voter-approved constitutional amendments.

In Pennsylvania, opponents say an amendment would go far beyond the issue of same-sex marriage, raising comparisons to the treatment of African Americans prior to the civil-rights era. They said it could have a profound effect on the rights of same-sex and unmarried couples to receive pensions and benefits, make medical decisions, and inherit property. They also said it would threaten the ability of same-sex couples to adopt children, and cause unnecessary hardship in child custody cases.

"Do we want our legacy to be writing, for the first time ever, discrimination into the constitution?" asked Rep. Daylin Leach (D., Montgomery), choking up as he spoke. "This is a basic issue of justice, fairness and common sense."

Gov. Rendell has no role in the amendment process and took no position on the bill approved yesterday, his spokeswoman Kate Philips said.

"The governor believes that couples in long-term committed relationships who are gay should have the same rights as heterosexuals do in marriage," she said.

The Amendment

The amendment approved by the Pennsylvania House:

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth, and neither the Commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions shall create or recognize a legal status identical or substantially equivalent to that of marriage for unmarried individuals."

How They Voted

• House members from the Philadelphia area who voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage were: William Adolph Jr. (R., Delaware); Stephen Barrar (R., Delaware); Raymond Bunt Jr. (R., Montgomery); Mario Civera Jr. (R., Delaware); Paul Clymer (R., Bucks); Thomas Corrigan Sr. (D., Bucks); Jacqueline Crahalla (R., Montgomery); Gene DiGirolamo (R., Bucks); John Fichter (R., Montgomery); Robert Flick (R., Chester); Thomas Gannon (R., Delaware); Robert Godshall (R., Montgomery); Kate Harper (R., Montgomery); Tim Hennessey (R., Chester); Arthur Hershey (R., Chester); George Kenney Jr. (R., Montgomery); Thomas Killion (R., Delaware); Anthony Melio (D., Bucks); Nicholas Micozzie (R., Delaware); John Perzel (R., Phila.); Scott Petri (R., Bucks); Thomas J. Quigley (R., Montgomery); Ron Raymond (R., Delaware); Curt Schroder (R., Chester); Elinor Taylor (R., Chester); John Taylor (R., Phila.); Matthew Wright (R., Bucks).

• Voting against the measure: Louise Williams Bishop (D., Phila.); Thomas W. Blackwell IV (D., Phila.); Mark Cohen (D., Phila.); Angel Cruz (D., Phila.); Lawrence Curry (D., Montgomery); Dwight Evans (D., Phila.); Michael Gerber (D., Montgomery); Harold James (D., Phila.); Babette Josephs (D., Phila.); William Keller (D., Phila.); Thaddeus Kirkland (D., Delaware); Daylin Leach (D., Montgomery); Marie Lederer (D., Phila.); Kathy Manderino (D., Phila.); Michael McGeehan (D., Phila.); Charles McIlhinney Jr. (R., Bucks); John Myers (D., Phila.); Frank Oliver (D., Phila.); Bernard O'Neill (R., Bucks); Cherelle Parker (D., Phila.); William Rieger (D., Phila.); James Roebuck Jr. (D., Phila.); Chris Ross (R., Chester); Carole Rubley (R., Chester); John P. Sabatina Jr. (D., Phila.); Josh Shapiro (D., Montgomery); David Steil (R., Bucks); W. Curtis Thomas (D., Phila.); Greg Vitali (D., Delaware); Ronald Waters (D., Phila.); Katharine Watson (R., Bucks); Jewell Williams (D., Phila.); Rosita Youngblood (D., Phila.).

• Not voting: Susan E. Cornell (R., Montgomery); Robert Donatucci (D., Phila.); Eugene McGill (R., Montgomery); Dennis O'Brien (R., Phila.).

In Their Words

"This is a very sad day for this great institution and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which historically led the way to greater liberty and civil rights in this country."

- Rep. Babette Josephs
(D., Phila.)

"I am stunned we are talking about this issue today when we need to be dealing with substance; we need to talk about minimum wage, we need to talk about property tax. George Bush wants to divert attention [from other issues]. I would suggest that is why the majority party wants to proffer this legislation."

- Rep. Dan Frankel
(D., Allegheny)

"We have what is called an institution of marriage. Today we are here, unbelievably, defending the institution of marriage. Our frame of government is under attack."

- Rep. Sam Rohrer
(R., Berks)

"Do we want our legacy to be writing, for the first time ever, discrimination into the constitution? This is a basic issue of justice, fairness and common sense."

- Rep. Daylin Leach
(D., Montgomery)

"Over the past 10 years, there has been a slow but steady erosion of the clear, crisp lines that define marriage throughout the nation."

- Rep. Scott Boyd
(R., Lancaster)

"The governor believes that couples in long-term committed relationships who are gay should have the same rights as heterosexuals do in marriage."

- Kate Philips, Gov. Rendell's spokeswoman