Topeka ? The Kansas House on Tuesday gave preliminary approval to a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Unless several lawmakers reverse their votes today when the measure is up for final action, the constitutional question will be before voters statewide April 5. The Senate has already approved the amendment.

“It’s really incredibly unfortunate that this looks like it will be on the ballot,” said the Rev. Thad Holcombe, campus pastor for Ecumenical Christian Ministries at Kansas University. “It’s really the institutionalization of homophobia.”

In sometimes dramatic fashion, the House debate showed the range of opinion on homosexuality, religion and the role of government.

Rep. Bill McCreary, R-Wellington, called homosexuality a lifestyle that “is an abomination to the Lord.”

But other House members said that an anti-homosexual stance was a personal religious view that should not be placed in the Kansas Constitution.

“It’s not OK if they impose that on the rest of us,” said Rep. Tim Owens, R-Overland Park.

Supporters said the amendment was needed to protect marriage against societal changes.

“The government needs to support traditional families,” said Rep. Forrest Knox, R-Fredonia.

That didn’t wash with Brian and Ashley Sandefur, a married Lawrence couple.

“This doesn’t do anything to protect the state of marriage. It has already been butchered by many heterosexual couples,” Ashley Sandefur said.

“Although I am opposed to gay marriage, I’m not sure it’s the responsibility of the state to legally intervene,” Brian Sandefur said.

The House advanced the measure on an 89-28 nonrecorded vote. In the 125-member House, 84 votes normally makes up the two-thirds majority needed to approve a constitutional amendment. But because one seat is vacant due to the death of a legislator, supporters need only 83 votes, according to House Majority Leader Clay Aurand, R-Courtland.

Opponents hopeful

6News video: House advances proposed marriage amendment KS Legislature Bill Information: Senate Bill 1601 On the Street: Do you think that Kansans will vote to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage? Canadian government introduces bill to legalize same-sex marriages Students rally against proposed marriage amendment (01-31-05) Topeka to vote March 1 on blocking gay anti-discrimination ordinances (01-28-05) Gay marriage ban advances; debate scheduled (01-28-05) Critics say marriage ban is too broad (01-27-05) Some supporters see marriage amendment as check on moral decay (01-26-05) More about the gay marriage debate

Opponents held out hope they could muster enough votes to stop it, but they conceded that seemed doubtful.

Forrest Swall, a former legislator from Lawrence who worked against the amendment, saw a slight chance the amendment would get derailed.

“Our hope is that legislators who really know in their head and heart that this is wrong would vote against it,” he said.

Opponents pleaded with fellow lawmakers to vote their conscience instead of caving to conservative political pressure.

Rep. Ray Cox, R-Bonner Springs, said that last year he voted for the amendment because it was politically expedient, but then felt awful. When he got a chance to vote on it again, he cast a “no” vote, which helped kill it.

“I changed my vote, and I never felt so good in my life. Don’t make a political vote. Vote with your heart,” Cox said.

Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, used the Bible to say legislators needed to be more tolerant of differences in people.

“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” Davis said.

Rep. Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence, said she opposed the amendment and thought about what her father had taught her: “We were never to sit in judgment of other people.”

Jeopardized rights

Rep. Barbara Craft, R-Junction City, tried to change the resolution to drop the section that states no relationship except marriage between a man and a woman can receive the rights of marriage.

Some opponents have said this provision could jeopardize legal rights in some other relationships, such as insurance benefits that many companies provide to unwed couples, including same-sex couples.

“This is a broad, sweeping statement that is vague and absolute,” Craft said.

Legal problems surrounding same-sex marriage bans have cropped up in other states.

In Utah, lawmakers are trying to make changes to the effect of a constitutional ban on gay marriage that was approved by voters in November.

They say the amendment could deny rights in other relationships, such as hospital visitation and survivor’s property rights to children being raised by grandparents.

Hoping to avoid the same mistake, Craft tried to get her change made, but that effort failed 41-83. Supporters of the original resolution said Craft’s concerns were unwarranted.