COLUMBIA--The state House of Representatives on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to ban something that's already illegal in South Carolina.

With no debate and little dissent, the House voted 96-3 to ask voters to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage. The resolution would insert language into the state constitution defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Supporters of the measure all sing from the same page: They want to protect the sanctity of marriage. "I think it pretty clearly indicates the will of the Legislature, which reflects the will of the majority of South Carolinians," said House Majority Leader Jim Merrill, R-Daniel Island.

Critics say lawmakers are trying to write discrimination into the constitution for political gain."This is overkill; gay marriages are already against the law in South Carolina," said state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, one of the three dissenting votes. "I'm against amending the constitution to add discrimination."

Now the fight shifts to the Senate, where subterfuge already is afoot.

The state is getting in on a trend that proved popular during last year's election.

Eleven states had similar constitutional amendments on their ballots in November. All of them passed, most by more than 2-to-1 margins. In Mississippi, for instance, 86 percent of the voters approved an amendment.

Some pundits said the measures were designed to help President Bush's re-election by attracting conservative voters to the polls. Conservatives say identical federal legislation is not far off.

Bert Easter, former president of the S.C. Gay and Lesbian Pride Movement, said voting to outlaw something already illegal clearly is politically motivated.

"This is a whipping post issue to appeal to their base," Easter said. "Gay marriage is already illegal. My partner and I can't get married in South Carolina."

Easter accused conservatives of playing shock-politics to the detriment of the state coffers because married couples pay more in taxes and are responsible for one another's bills.

State Rep. John Graham Altman, one of the sponsors of the joint resolution, said a constitutional ban is needed to prevent federal judges from ruling gay marriages legal, despite state law.

"In England, they have Mad Cow disease, and in America we have Black Robe disease," said Altman, R-Charleston.

The issue picked up traction in November 2003 when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found there was "no rational reason" for outlawing gay marriage under the state's constitution and ordered the state to start allowing gays to marry six months later.

The ruling sent shock waves to South Carolina. Lawmakers in the House quickly cobbled together a bill designed to ensure that gays couldn't get married in Massachusetts, then come to the Palmetto State and enjoy the benefits of legal marriage.

The bill breezed through the House, only to die in the Senate with no vote being taken.

The no-vote option looked pretty good Tuesday.

Many House members, including most Democrats in the Charleston legislative delegation, opted not to vote on the bill, which passed crucial second reading. Even lawmakers who oppose the constitutional amendment know a vote against it will come back to haunt them in upcoming campaigns.

Across the hall, Sen. Robert Ford chairs a judiciary subcommittee studying a constitutional ban on gay marriages.

Ford, D-Charleston, has called for a series of hearings on the issue: one to determine the economic impact of homosexuals in the state; another on the civil rights ramifications of the bill; and another on whether homosexuality is a genetic trait.

"I'm not saying I'm holding this up, but I want it to get a fair hearing," Ford said.

Privately, many senators say they'd just as soon not have to vote on the issue.

Sen. John Hawkins, R-Spartanburg, is pushing a bill that not only would ban gay marriage but would forbid any form of civil union or contractually binding agreements between people of the same gender.

The libertarian streak in the Senate likely would keep that measure from passing.

But the House bill, which will reach the Senate by the end of the week, may have a shot.

As one lawmaker said privately, in South Carolina, it's good politics.

HOUSE RESOLUTION

What: The House legislation would allow voters in 2006 to amend the state constitution to define marriage as an institution between a man and woman.

Why: Supporters say the amendment shores up the institution of marriage, which they say is being compromised by civil unions for gay couples.

Why not: Critics say gay marriage is illegal in the state and that the legislation is a bid by conservatives to score points at the expense of a minority.