The state Senate Appropriations Committee hosted a contentious meeting Tuesday morning as advocates and opponents fought over a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriages.

The amendment, authored by Sen. Michael W. Brubaker, a Lititz-area Republican, recognizes only man-woman unions as marriage or the "functional equivalent" of marriage.

Opponents of the amendment said they believe it would have disastrous consequences not just for homosexuals but also for non-married seniors who live together.

"We do believe this destructive and flawed amendment could (harm) so many lives, young and old," said Karen Buck, executive director of SeniorLaw Center in Philadelphia.

Advocates for the proposed amendment, however, said the 27 states that currently have similar marriage amendments in their constitutions have experienced no such problems. They said the proposed amendment doesn't change current law, which already bans gay marriage.

Teresa Stanton Collett, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, called such concerns "phantom fears."

"The reality of the situation is that gay-rights activists are persistently demanding the courts disregard the text of the laws as well as the political will of the people in efforts to remake the institution of marriage to suit their particular political views," Collett wrote in prepared testimony delivered to the committee.

Amending the state constitution requires the approval of the House and Senate in two successive two-year sessions of the General Assembly. Then voters must approve the proposed amendment in a statewide referendum.

The appropriations committee held its hearing on the amendment because it would cost taxpayer money to hold a referendum.

The hearing room was jammed with about 120 adults and some children, who listened to discussions about constitutional law, morality, religion and sex. Many audience members wore lime-green buttons inscribed with "Protect Marriage," while others held red signs reading "Marriage is not a gay crime."

The emotional level of the hearing escalated anytime state Sen. Vince Fumo, a Philadelphia Democrat, aimed sharp questions at amendment supporters who testified.

The crowd occasionally jeered Fumo, and one man yelled, "Religious people have rights, too," prompting appropriations chairman Sen. Gibson Armstrong, a Refton Republican, to warn the crowd against unruly conduct.

There was one testy exchange between Fumo and Bishop Gilbert Coleman of Freedom Christian Bible Fellowship, a church in the Democrat's district.

Coleman said America has lost its moral compass since the church was taken out of government and schools, and he went on to say legalizing marriages other than heterosexual unions would erode a "foundational pillar" of this country.

"This nation finds no problem in abandoning its beliefs and morals to conform to the wants and desires of a few people that believe we should throw away the foundation and opt for a new one," Coleman said. "America was established on biblical principles that anchored and governed this nation until government decided that the Bible and its teachings are unconstitutional; thus we began a downward spiral. … "

Fumo took exception to Coleman's comments.

"Look at those people," Fumo said, pointing to several openly gay members of the Rainbow Rose Community, a Lancaster-based group opposed to the amendment, "and say you want to discriminate against them. They're just as human as you are.

"You want your civil rights as a minority," Fumo went on to say. "They want their rights as a gay minority."

"These are not civil rights," Coleman said. "These are moral rights."

As Coleman departed, he said in a barely audible voice to Fumo, "Go read your Bible," which prompted the Democrat to say, "I'll go read the Constitution."

While much of the debate Tuesday focused on how the amendment would affect homosexual relationships, Buck raised a question about how it would affect seniors.

Buck said the words "functional equivalent" would invalidate a senior couple's civil-union status, legal in places like New Jersey, should they move to Pennsylvania.

"If this amendment passes, seniors may lose their pension benefits, their Social Security, even their homes," Buck said. "They may lose their right to inherit. This amendment could eliminate property rights, financial supports, health coverage and the right to make health care decisions about loved ones. It may indeed cause poverty and even homelessness."

Collett earlier said such fears were unfounded because Pennsylvania courts had previously upheld those rights for unmarried people, and amending the state Constitution would not change that.

Reiss W. Potterveld, president of Lancaster Theological Seminary, also testified.

The proposal "is a step backward into language of denial, devaluing, delegitimizing, and in its simple wording, in my opinion, conceals a well-spring of toxic and prejudicial feeling," Potterveld said.

E-mail: dpidgeon@lnpnews.com