HARRISBURG -- A Senate committee today approved an amended bill to ban same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania, and yet foes of gay marriage were still upset, claiming the vote was actually a defeat for their side.

That's because the Senate Judiciary Committee made a last-minute change to the wording of House Bill 2381, which had passed the state House last week. In the eyes of opponents of gay marriage, the committee's change weakened the bill seriously.

The House-passed bill had outlawed both gay marriage as well as civil unions between the same or opposite sexes.

But Sen. Jane Earll, R-Erie, deleted the portion banning civil unions, leaving only the portion that bans actual same-sex marriages. Her amendment passed 9-5 in committee.

She said the wording about civil unions made the bill unnecessary and confusing. The amended bill now reads the same as the 1996 Pennsylvania Defense of Marriage Act, stating that "a marriage is only between one man and one woman.'' Mrs. Earll contended that her revised wording was sufficient to prevent gay marriage.

But Michael Geer, head of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, criticized her amendment. He insisted that a wide-ranging ban needs to be enacted, preventing same-sex marriages and any type of civil union, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

Mr. Geer said that gay couples in other states have been circumventing bans on actual marriage by simply being joined in civil unions. He wants to ban them both, as do most House members.

Supporters of outlawing both gay marriage and civil unions are expected to try to re-amend the language -- returning back to the wording of the House-passed bill, when the measure comes up in the full Senate next week.

Mr. Geer is also concerned that there won't be enough time, before the Legislature leaves June 30, for the Senate and House to agree on the same wording.

The identical bill must pass both chambers in two sessions, and supporters want the House and Senate to agree on the same wording by early July, so that a constitutional notice requirement for publishing the proposed amendment can be put into newspapers by early August.

Even if that happens, both chambers would have to approve the measure again, either in 2007 or 2008, for the proposed constitutional change to go to state voters in a referendum.