HARRISBURG -- After nearly two hours of emotional debate on legislation to prohibit same-sex marriages in Pennsylvania, state House members decided they weren't ready to take a stand on the hot topic, and put off a vote until after the Nov. 2 election.

Conservatives argued strongly for the bill, saying, "Marriage is a God-given institution between one man and one woman and is the foundation of the family," while moderates lambasted it, saying it would make gay people second-class citizens.

Finally state Rep. Harry Readshaw, D-Carrick, moved to postpone further debate until Nov. 8. That would be after the November election in which many legislators will seek another term. His motion was narrowly approved 96-94.

"I think they were afraid of it," said Rep. Jerry Birmelin, R-Wayne, who sponsored the legislation that said "no marriage license shall be issued to two individuals of the same sex." It also said any marriage "between individuals of the same sex which was entered into in another state or foreign jurisdiction ... shall be void in this commonwealth."

Readshaw's motion "was an effort to put off a decision. Some people didn't want to vote on it," said Birmelin. "The natural inclination of many legislators is to avoid controversial issues, and this was controversial."

But Rep. Mike Veon, D-Beaver Falls, said legislators needed more time to study such a complex issue, which he said could have far-reaching legal and social implications that hadn't been fully considered. He said Birmelin released copies of the measure only Tuesday afternoon.

Critics said one little-known provision of the bill would have banned "spousal equivalent relationships," such as civil unions or domestic partnerships sanctioned in other states.

They said it could conceivably affect some heterosexual as well as homosexual couples, especially senior citizens -- for example, elderly widows and widowers who live together without getting married so as not to disturb their finances, wills or health benefits from their first marriages.

"Tabling the bill is a good idea, the right and reasonable approach on an emotional, hot-button issue," Veon said.

In floor debate, Birmelin said his ban on gay marriage "strikes to the very core of what our society is and should be. This isn't a trivial issue. It's about what our values are and what's in the best interest of our society and what should be avoided."

Rep. Thomas Yewcic, D-Cambria, supported the measure, saying: "Marriage is a God-given institution and has been supported by Pennsylvanians for the last 300 years. Our laws have reflected that and should not change it. Now is the time to address this important issue that affects the future of our state and our families."

But more moderate and liberal members, of both parties, feared that the Legislature would be turning gays into citizens with fewer rights than heterosexuals.

Rep. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, said he didn't know exactly what the Legislature's goal was with this bill.

"Are we saying that if we treat gay people badly enough they'll go away? Or they'll stop being gay? Gay couples will exist in Pennsylvania. They always have," Leach said. "Do we want them going around as second-class citizens without basic rights? This is a horrible message to send."

He called the granting of equal rights to gays "the last great civil rights struggle in our nation's history. Twenty years from now, we'll wonder what the fuss was all about in letting gay people be married."

Rep. Steven Nickol, R-York, said he was concerned about the bill's ban on spousal equivalent relationships, which were defined as a "civil union, domestic partnership or life partnership between two individuals of the same sex or different sexes, which the individuals may believe is similar to marriage."

He noted that many younger couples and even some senior citizens -- of the same sex or different sexes -- often live together, either for convenience, safety, companionship or just because they don't feel like going through a formal civil or religious ceremony.

He said he feared "protracted and expensive litigation" if the Legislature started telling either gay or straight couples, for example, whom they could leave their possessions to after they died.

Rep. Kathy Manderino, D-Philadelphia, said Birmelin's proposal could make it difficult for a surviving partner to get insurance payments or other benefits if his or her partner were killed on the job.

"I will stand up for every citizen," she said. "All should have the same rights as I do."

Nickol said the bill also "could make it difficult for senior citizens who are living together to leave possessions to their children, if their unions aren't legally recognized" by the state.

Then, paraphrasing Jesus, he said, "Forgive us, for we know not what we do here today."