HARRISBURG -- State legislators sometimes say the darnedest things on the floor of the House and Senate.

Two weeks ago, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, refused to vote for a resolution saluting Muslims because, he said, they "do not recognize Jesus Christ as God."

Last week, Rep. David Levdansky, D-Forward, offended the Spanish firm that's buying Kennywood Park, referring to Spanish leaders as "our good allies that have turned tail and run in the war in Iraq."

Four years ago, Sen. Vincent Fumo, D-Philadelphia, lost his temper during a debate and called a Republican Senate leader a "faggot," which wasn't smart because gay voters are an important political bloc in his south Philadelphia district. Mr. Fumo quickly realized his political gaffe and apologized to the gay community.

Mr. Metcalfe and Mr. Levdansky have refused to apologize, maintaining that their comments were factual and defensible.

"I didn't say anything wrong,'' said Mr. Metcalfe, one of the most conservative Republicans in the Legislature. "The resolution [honoring Muslims] talked about William Penn's vision for a godly society. He and the majority of men and women who founded this country believed that Jesus Christ is God, and Muslims don't believe that."

Mr. Levdansky opposed a bill that would eliminate the amusement tax that West Mifflin imposes on Kennywood Park tickets. If that tax were eliminated, he said, West Mifflin residents would have to pay higher property taxes and "a multi-national corporation based in Spain would get a windfall. I oppose that."

Another memorable incident occurred in June 2005 in a clash between Rep. John Myers, a black Democrat from Philadelphia, and Rep. Tom Yewcic, a white Democrat from Cambria County.

It arose out of debate over a bill that permitted only three flags -- the American flag, a state flag or a military flag -- to be displayed on some buildings. Mr. Yewcic said anyone who wanted to fly some other flag could "go back to their ethnic origins and fly their flag there."

According to the online news service Capitolwire, Mr. Myers considered that statement racist and argued it violated House rules on debate decorum. When then-Speaker John Perzel said it didn't, Mr. Myers became angry and said, "Those types of remarks would be made by a cracker," a derogatory term for poor whites.

Mr. Yewcic said he meant no offense by his remark and apologized if it was taken the wrong way. When the speaker asked Mr. Myers to apologize, he said, "I'm sorry for referring to Rep. Yewcic as a cracker." Mr. Perzel removed all of Mr. Myers' remarks from the official House record.

Also, Rep. Camille "Bud'' George, a long-time Democrat from Clearfield County, has on occasion been censured by the House speaker for using salty language or mild profanity during debates.

But offensive name-calling has been rare on the House and Senate floor in recent years, with the vast majority of legislative debate generally tepid if not -- dare we say it -- downright dull.

But 100 years or so ago things were more raucous, said G. Terry Madonna, a professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster.

"Going back in history, there have been lots of untoward or provocative statements by members in the midst of high emotion," he said. "There was high drama and even fist-fights in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The demeanor now is more civil than it used to be."

House and Senate rules aren't too specific about what is permissible criticism and what isn't. House Speaker Dennis O'Brien, R-Philadelphia, who presides at most of the House sessions, said he believes in the concept of freedom of speech and thinks House debate, as a rule, should be wide-ranging and robust.

However, he added, personal attacks by one member on another, outright profanity or statements made in poor taste will be ruled out of order and stricken from the record if necessary.

Also, under Rule 12 of the House rules adopted in March 2007, if a member has a problem with something that's been said and wants to "explain a matter personal to the member," he or she asks the speaker's permission.

These "questions of personal privilege," the rule says, "shall be limited to questions affecting the rights, reputation and conduct of members of the House in their respective capacity."

The next rule, Rule 13, concerns "transgression of House rules" by a legislator, either through speech or action. The presiding officer -- that is, the speaker or his stand-in -- or any House member can ask the speaker to "call the member to order." The legislator who was talking offensively "shall immediately sit down, unless permitted by the House to explain" his comments.

If the member appeals the speaker's ruling that he stop speaking, the House will vote on whether to uphold the speaker.

"If the decision is in favor of the member, the member may proceed,'' the rule states. If a member's comments or action are deemed seriously offensive, "the member shall be liable to censure or other punishment as the House deems proper."

In the Senate, Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll is in charge and oversees decorum. She often consults with the Senate parliamentarian before ruling on such issues.

But there is a lot of subjectivity as to what is permissible or not. Part of the reason, Mr. O'Brien said, is because he and other speakers believe in their members' right to express themselves freely.

He said the speaker's job "is simple -- to try to keep the focus on the merits of the matter at hand. Sometimes people stray [to topics off point]. We are constantly monitoring [debate]."

That said, he added that the House floor "is meant to be a forum of free speech. Sometimes members say things in the heat of the moment and later want to take those words back. But we all should be aware of a sense of decorum and sensitivity during debate."