Topeka ? The Kansas Senate on Thursday rejected a proposed constitutional prohibition on gay marriage after more than six hours of contentious debate and procedural wrangling that left conservatives saying they had been robbed.

“This is an absolutely shameful day in the Kansas Senate,” said Sen. Susan Wagle, R-Wichita.

Gay rights advocates were joyous.

“This is a historic day that continues Kansas’ legacy regarding civil rights,” said Tiffany Muller, of Kansas Unity and Pride Alliance. “May it send a message of acceptance across this great state and the country.”

Senators who opposed the ban and conservatives who thought it had been weakened during debate combined to defeat the proposal, 16-17, with six members present but not voting and one absent.

The measure needed two-thirds approval, or 27 of 40 votes, to make it to the ballot for voters statewide.

Sen. Mark Buhler, R-Lawrence, voted against the proposal.

“When it gets down to moral stuff, I have to vote with my heart. I’m not trying to stand in judgment of anybody else,” Buhler said.

The major disputes during the debate were over a change to the measure by Sen. Lana Oleen, R-Manhattan, and a 4 1/2-hour mini-filibuster by Sen. David Adkins, R-Leawood, in which the Senate used all its allowed recorded, roll-call votes.

Sen. David Adkins, R-Leawood, discusses why he made a motion to send a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in Kansas back to committee. The motion was defeated Thursday and debate on the bill continued at the Statehouse in Topeka.

The proposed constitutional amendment came to the Senate from the House stating marriage is a civil contract between a man and a woman and that all other marriages are void. It also said no relationship other than a marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits, rights and privileges of marriage.

But Oleen offered a change to drop the language that dealt with benefits.

She said current state law and state Supreme Court decisions were strong enough to protect the institution of marriage.

Conservatives argued that by removing the language pertaining to marriage benefits, so-called civil unions or domestic partnerships between same-sex couples could be allowed and people in those arrangements could receive the benefits of marriage.

“To equate the institution of marriage to civil unions and domestic partnerships is an insult to all Kansans, and I believe they will rise up in protest,” said Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler.

Anger vented

Senate advances amendment against gay marriage (3-25-04) Senate begins gay marriage debate (3-25-04) Senate panel forwards amendment banning same-sex marriages (3-23-04) See more on gay marriage

Conservatives also were incensed that Adkins, a supporter of gay marriage, earlier had burned up the allowable amount of recorded votes with proposed changes that all failed and that they said were meaningless. Those changes included amendments that would have made illegal divorce and separation.

“To shut the door to the public and not let the public know how we voted on this absolutely paramount issue — this is awful,” said Sen. Les Donovan, R-Wichita. When the Oleen amendment passed 21-17, Donovan slammed his hand hard against a column in the chamber and walked away.

One senator, Larry Salmans, R-Hanston, read from the Bible, and said that while there would be no official record vote on Oleen’s amendment, “I can guarantee you, it is recorded and some day we’ll be held accountable.”

Adkins said he wasn’t trying to tie up the Senate on procedural issues, but added that he wasn’t going to let the majority will “screw the little guy.”

The Legislature and voters may ban gay marriage, he said, but at some point in the future that move would be undone.

“The march of liberty will ultimately reverse this action,” Adkins said.

Local senators’ votes

Buhler voted for the Oleen amendment and to advance the measure to final action, saying he wanted to get the proposal in position for an up-or-down vote.

Sen. Bob Lyon, R-Winchester, supported the gay marriage prohibition in the form it was received from the House and voted against the Oleen amendment. He was not present during the final vote.

Wagle, a vehement opponent of gay marriage, said she and others would decide how to continue fighting for the issue in the current session.

“We will regroup and find a different way to address it,” she said.