HARRISBURG -- The state Senate last night approved a bill outlawing gay marriage, but the vote did nothing to settle the ongoing social controversy that deeply divides conservatives and liberals.

The Senate voted 38 to 12 for its version of the Marriage Protection Amendment to the state constitution, which says the only kind of marriage that will be recognized in Pennsylvania is that "between one man and one woman."

But conservative legislators and religious groups that want to prohibit gay marriages weren't happy about the vote, because the Senate refused to adopt the stronger language of a House-passed bill. The House version bans civil unions between gay or straight couples, as well as gay marriage.

Civil unions are cohabitation arrangements, or domestic partnerships, either between same-sex or different-sex couples, that are recognized in a few states, such as Vermont and Connecticut.

Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, said the "weaker" language of the Senate bill "won't give Pennsylvanians an opportunity to effectively defend the institution of marriage."

He claimed that civil unions "are marriages, for all intents and purposes," more often used by same-sex couples, and said both civil unions and gay marriages should be outlawed.

Some conservative Republican senators who oppose gay marriage voted against the Senate bill because "it's not strong enough," as Sen. Bob Regola of Hempfield complained. Sens. Jane Orie, of McCandless, and John Pippy, of Moon, also voted against the bill because they preferred the version that passed the House 136-61 two weeks ago.

Some liberal Democratic senators blasted the entire concept of banning gay marriage as blatant discrimination and an unjustified intrusion by state government into people's personal lives.

"We're not protecting anything," fumed Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park. "This is nothing but political pandering and posturing on a hot button social issue. We're just enshrining discrimination in the state Constitution. It's disheartening, divisive and discriminatory."

"I thought the great Republican social philosophy was to get government off people's backs, and now we're going to let government into people's bedrooms?" thundered Sen. Vincent Fumo, D-Philadelphia.

"If somebody's [heterosexual] marriage is threatened by two people of the same sex who love each other, then God help that marriage," he added.

Referring to religious conservatives who say the Bible prohibits gay marriage, Mr. Fumo said, "We shouldn't use the name of God to justify discrimination. What nonsense! What hypocrisy! What blasphemy!"

State Sen. Jane Earll, R-Erie, who authored the Senate version, said it's not necessary to ban civil unions because they don't even exist in Pennsylvania.

Larry Frankel, of the American Civil Liberties Union, and Stacey Sobel, of the Gay/Lesbian Center in Philadelphia, said: "Marriage isn't under attack in Pennsylvania," and hoped the bill would die due to a lack of Senate-House agreement.

A time deadline looms because the Senate and House have adopted different versions of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

The bill now returns to the House, which must decide whether to adopt the Senate wording by June 30. To get the proposed constitutional amendment on the November 2007 statewide ballot, the two chambers must approve an identical version of the bill in two different sessions -- this year and next year. To meet constitutional notice requirements -- meaning publishing the amendment in state newspapers by early August -- the two chambers must agree on a single version of the bill before legislators recess June 30.

But Mr. Geer said he'll still try to get the House to adopt the stronger language banning civil unions as well as gay marriage, and send it back to the Senate for agreement by June 30.

But with adoption of a new state budget due to take center stage next week, along with other sticky issues such as raising the minimum wage and enacting lobbyist reform laws, time is running out on the Marriage Protection Amendment.