HARRISBURG -- Two Pennsylvania-based conservative values groups, both of them critics of the "homosexual lifestyle," want to change the state's hate crime law, saying it discourages free speech and is being abused by the Philadelphia district attorney's office.

In so doing, the Pennsylvania branches of Concerned Women for America and the American Family Association are coming to the defense of Michael Marcavage, the 25-year-old Philadelphia evangelist arrested last autumn after preaching and protesting at an annual gay pride event called "OutFest."

Both groups want the references to sexual orientation removed from the state's Ethnic Intimidation Act. Such a change, however, is unlikely as long as Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat who has supported health benefits for same-sex domestic partners and other pro-gay political matters, is in office.

Marcavage and his collaborators, known as Repent America, were arrested essentially for failing to leave the OutFest event. But Philadelphia's district attorney also is prosecuting Marcavage on an ethnic intimidation charge, Pennsylvania's version of a hate crime.

For months, Marcavage's defenders, including many conservative Christian groups, free speech groups, even some liberal columnists, have said that the district attorney's office crossed the line by charging Marcavage with ethnic intimidation, mainly because that charge, if it's to stick, must be accompanied by another serious crime, like arson, trespassing or harassment.

But now, at least two of those groups are criticizing not just the district attorney, but the law itself. Saying the law is flawed, they are using Marcavage's arrest to resurrect previous complaints that the Ethnic Intimidation Act law would target not only violent criminal offenders, but also outspoken Christians who are publicly condemning homosexuality, abortion and other hot-button, religiously tinged topics.

Concerned Women and the American Family Association are both backing a bill introduced last week by a Democratic legislator that wouldn't kill the hate crime law entirely, but would eliminate the protections given to homosexuals, as well as to the physically and mentally disabled. The law was amended in late 2002 to specifically include those groups.

"I worked on passing that bill for 10 years. It wasn't easy," said Steve Black, political director for the Pennsylvania Gay and Lesbian Alliance. "It's unfortunate they have to target gay and lesbians for political purposes."

Their goal, Black said, is not to nurture free speech, but to "eliminate any kind of protections for gay and lesbian people in Pennsylvania."

The hate crime law, under the proposed revision, would remain intact for people who are assailed because of their "race, color, religion or national origin." In other words, the hate crime protections would remain in place for religious victims but not for gay victims, nor handicapped ones, if the bill is passed as it's now written.

Wherever they are debated, ethnic intimidation laws are controversial, because they create a new category of crime, punishing not only a criminal act but also the person's mind-set when he commits the crime. Opponents say the laws curtail freedoms of speech and religion.

Proponents say the laws are necessary since a hate crime is fundamentally different than a "regular" crime. Vandalizing someone's house as a prank is different than, for example, vandalizing someone's house just because the owner is black -- the latter crime is committed with the intention of intimidating a particular group of people.

That explanation didn't satisfy opponents in 2002, and it doesn't satisfy them now.

"There's no such thing as a 'love' crime," said Nancy Staible , director of the Zelienople-based Concerned Women group. "We'd like to take it all out." But because a wholesale demolition of the law is not likely, "we'll do it by bits and pieces."

"These are not ethnic groups in the first place," Staible said, referring to the so-called ethnic intimidation law.

Both groups say they wouldn't mind if the whole law was overturned, but both also say that they are pleased with the amendments, as sponsored by Rep. Tom Yewcic, D-Cambria. Yewcic is the same lawmaker who, along with several House colleagues, sued two gay men in an attempt to prevent them from obtaining a marriage license in Bucks County last year.

In lieu of overturning the whole law, Yewcic said he's content with reverting to the law's original language, which made no mention of "sexual orientation, gender or gender identity."

"When we argued on the House floor in 2002, we [said] this particular amendment would result in hate crime charges geared toward censoring religious speech," Yewcic said yesterday.

"Freedom of speech, that's the bottom line in all of this," said Yewcic. "Philadelphia is a national embarrassment."