HARRISBURG -- Hot-button social issues like abortion, gun control, the environment and gay marriage are guaranteed to polarize.

		Related story Rep. Metcalfe is the No. 1 conservative

That was clear yesterday as debate intensified between conservatives and liberals in the wake of Tuesday night's state House vote to outlaw same-sex and polygamous marriages in Pennsylvania.

"The representatives who voted for this bill are religion-driven, fear-mongering terrorists," Robert Arlia of Cranberry said yesterday.

"Every terrorist in the world uses religion as the basis for their actions. What the House did is use religion as the excuse to be a terrorist to all the gay and lesbian people in this state," said Mr. Arlia, who's been in a committed relationship with his male partner for 23 years.

Nancy Staible, director of the state's chapter of Concerned Women for America, disagreed.

She praised state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, and 135 other House members who approved the constitutional amendment and sent it to the Senate for action by June 30.

"We are elated by what the House did. They're following the will of the people of Pennsylvania," Mrs. Staible asserted.

Her group, along with allies like the American Family Association and the Pennsylvania Family Institute, "are fighting for the traditional family of one man and one woman, which is under attack today," she said.

"We would rather not have to wage this battle, but we have been forced to" by forces that want to change the definition of marriage, she said. "We are defending tried and true traditional marriage, which has proven over the centuries to be the bedrock institution for the family."

The state House is run by Republicans and is generally conservative on social issues, so the amendment's passage wasn't a surprise. But the margin of more than 2 to 1, with most Republicans being joined by a sizable number of Democrats, was a surprise to many.

Many opponents were liberals from larger cities, inclduing Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, who feared the measure could spawn lawsuits if enacted.

They called it unfair, discriminatory, intolerant and foolish, adding it's "a waste of taxpayer time and money," as Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill, put it.

Mr. Frankel and Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, seemed to know early in the emotional three-hour debate Tuesday that they would come out on the losing end. But they didn't stop trying to change minds.

"Other than the political reasons for this bill -- to bring out the conservative vote -- why is there a rush to do this damage to [nontraditional] families who are committed and loving?" Ms. Josephs asked.

Maureen Cohon, a lawyer with the Nontraditional Couples and Families Group of the Buchanan Ingersoll firm in Pittsburgh, said amending the state constitution also could hurt heterosexuals in nontraditional relationships, like middle-aged divorced people or senior citizens, who want companionship but don't want to remarry for a variety of reasons, including a bad past experience with marriage or risking the loss of financial benefits like pensions, inheritances or health insurance.

"This legislation is a setback not only for gay men and lesbian couples but also for a man and a woman who live together but aren't married," she said.

Also outraged was Bob Poropatich of Stanton Heights, who said in an e-mail to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette yesterday: "Tell those self-righteous, Bible-thumping public servants that their narrow-minded views and beliefs don't represent all of us."

Mr. Poropatich, who's been in a committed gay relationship for more than 20 years, said legislators should spend their time "working for the money we provide for their pay, working on those issues which affect all of us, not just their bigoted constituency or political party."

But backing for the House's action from the political right was just as strong as the brickbats from the left.

Diane Gramley of Franklin, head of the American Family Association in Pennsylvania, said a recent poll showed that 65 percent of state residents "would vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman."

She insisted, though some critics disagree, that the amendment would not invalidate domestic partner benefits provided by private companies to employees involved in same-sex relationships.

She said marriage should be defined by citizens in a referendum, not by "judges that may seek to redefine marriage" as between two people of the same sex or between a man and more than one woman.

Mr. Metcalfe said all he's trying to do is to leave the definition of marriage up to the citizens of Pennsylvania.

He said he thinks it would be approved, because "natural law dictates that the foundational building block of society is the joining together of a man and a woman, which is practiced in marriage."

The process of amending the constitution is slow, however, and has just started:

First, the Senate must act. It must do so before June 30 if the marriage amendment is to go to voters in November 2007.

At least 90 days' notice is required in both 2006 and 2007 to give voters adequate time to understand the proposed amendment. Thus, the measure would have to be published in newspapers by early August to give voters a chance to oust lawmakers this November if they don't like their action on the marriage amendment.

If the Senate does go along with the House by June 30, then both chambers must adopt the amendment a second time in the spring of 2007 for it to be acted on by voters in November 2007.

If the Senate doesn't vote on the measure until this fall, then it couldn't be on the ballot until November 2009.

Gov. Ed Rendell, who has a role in almost everything done in Harrisburg, oddly doesn't have one in amending the constitution. If it passes both houses in two different terms, the measure goes before voters in a November election; Mr. Rendell can't sign or veto it.

The Senate doesn't return to session until next week and it isn't known if members will vote by June 30.