COLUMBIA--If the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and woman makes it to South Carolina, expect it to sail through the Legislature as long as the Republicans stay in charge, Statehouse leaders predict.

The conservative climate and support for President Bush among the Republican majority makes passage likely, they contend.

"I don't think that will have a hard time passing through the General Assembly, certainly not the House," said Rep. Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. "I think it will pass easily."

House Speaker David Wilkins, R-Greenville, added "The South Carolina House will stand strong with the president."

Any proposed amendment to the Constitution would have to pass a simple majority in both chambers to be ratified, officials said. Republicans control the House and the Senate.

To illustrate the mood in Columbia, the marriage proposal sponsored by state Reps. Gloria Haskins, R-Greenville, and Marty Coates, R-Florence, that would deny benefits to gay couples married outside the state, passed the House Judiciary Committee by a 19-1 count Tuesday.

Members of South Carolina's congressional delegation fell along party lines in their support for the proposal, with Republicans being supportive while a ranking Democrat was cautious.

"Defining marriage as being between a man and a woman should be an issue for the public at large through their elected representatives to decide," said Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham. "It should not be decided by a handful of judges and the city of San Francisco and then forced upon the rest of the country."

"As the president stated, the sanctity of marriage must be protected," said 1st District Republican U.S. Rep. Henry Brown of Hanahan. "The only way to ensure it is protected is by passing a constitutional amendment. In doing so, the citizens of this great country will have their voice heard rather than have overzealous courts dictate what is best for our nation."

Democratic 6th District U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn of Columbia questioned whether the idea of an amendment was for political gain. "I believe in the sanctity of marriage and its religious-based definition as a union between a man and a woman," he said. "I also hold sacred our nation's Constitution and do not believe the amending of it should be used as fodder every election cycle.

"Last cycle it was to ban flag-burning," Clyburn added. "The cycle before it was to ban abortions. What will it be next cycle?"

Some legal scholars agreed the proposal likely would face an easy road in the Statehouse. "It has a religious motivation," said University of South Carolina law professor Eldon Wedlock. "It plays to Bush's base."