Hearings in Harrisburg today on a proposed state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage attracted at least one busload of supporters who made the trip from Lancaster to the state capital.

But the amendment itself faces a much longer, tougher road.

Sen. Mike Brubaker, a Republican from Warwick Township, has proposed the ban, a move that is likely to resurrect a bitter legislative debate from 2006.

The Senate Judiciary Committee was holding hearings on the amendment late this morning.

Brubaker, who had been scheduled to testify at the hearing, was sick and unable to attend, according to his office. His prepared remarks were read at the hearing.

A similar proposal backed by Republican Rep. Scott Boyd of West Lampeter Township, stalled in 2006.

G. Terry Madonna, director of Franklin & Marshall College's Center for Politics & Public Affairs, said Brubaker's amendment is likely to go the same way as Boyd's.

"I don't think that in this environment there is much of a chance," Madonna said today.

While gay marriage is a "cultural hot-button issue that gets people's temperatures pretty high," Madonna said it is not a legislative priority and would not likely pass a legislature controlled by Democrats.

Some local residents went to Harrisburg today to try to convince lawmakers otherwise. About 50 of them boarded a yellow school bus at the Sheetz convenience store at Oregon Pike and Eden Road just after 8 a.m.

Deb Walton, 53, of Lititz, said she wanted to attend the Senate hearings in support of the amendment "because marriage is one man, one woman."

Walton, a married mother of three, said marriage of a man and woman is "the best family plan" and alternative arrangements are breaking down society.

John Delagrange, 75, of Manheim Township, said the proposal is not meant to deny anyone his or her rights, but it is important to narrow the definition of marriage.

Delagrange said he has no problem with gays having civil unions, but thinks it is important to reserve "marriage" for a man and a woman in which children are traditionally raised.

"I have a problem with trying to restructure something that has been since time began practically," he said.

Brubaker has said changing the constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman would prevent state courts from allowing same-sex definitions.

Amending the constitution requires the approval by the House and Senate in two successive two-year sessions of the General Assembly and then the approval of voters in a statewide referendum. If Brubaker's measure is approved this year, the soonest it could appear on the ballot would be 2009.

Critics point out that state law already bans gay marriage and say Brubaker is creating an issue where there is none. There already are state and federal "defense of marriage acts" on the books.

Both Congress and Pennsylvania passed the measures in 1996, and both define marriage as a civil contract between one man and one woman. Despite those existing statutory bans on same-sex marriages, Brubaker has said the institution of marriage is vulnerable to attack. He cited New Jersey's recent legalization of civil unions under a court order.

Brubaker introduced the measure, S.B. 1250, in early February.

Pennsylvania would become the 28th state to enact such a constitutional ban. The House and Senate — both controlled by Republicans at the time — passed conflicting versions of Boyd's amendment in 2006 and could not resolve their dispute, which centered on whether it also should allow civil unions.

CONTACT US: cumble@LNPnews.com or 481-6031