COLUMBIA--Two pocketbook issues that would touch most South Carolinians, along with a hot-button gay measure, breezed through the House on Wednesday as members put in overtime to clear the legislative agenda.

In a session that lasted hours longer than usual, House Republicans pushed through Gov. Mark Sanford's income tax reduction plan, approved two property tax reassessment plans and strengthened the state's ban on gay marriages.

All the bills move on to the Senate.

By an 86-24 vote, House members approved Sanford's plan to reduce the state's highest income tax bracket by .225 percent annually for the next 10 years, dropping the rate from 7 percent to 4.75 percent.The move drew immediate criticism from House Minority Leader James Smith, D-Columbia, who said the plan is politically motivated and would undercut education, healthcare and public safety.

"It's an election year, and this is another installment of election-year politics, at the expense of good government," Smith said.

Smith said a neutral examination of what Sanford is proposing "will tell you this is the wrong idea at the wrong time." He maintained that low- and middle-income South Carolinians would get virtually nothing from the proposal.

Following the vote, the governor released a statement lauding House members.

Saying his bill was essential to build a stronger business climate, Sanford added, "We've taken a huge step forward in helping realize our shared goals of creating jobs, attracting capital investment and raising income levels here in South Carolina."

The tax reduction would occur only in years the state's general fund grows by at least 2 percent, based on projections by the state Board of Economic Advisors. The plan would take effect July 1, 2005, and would occur regardless of growth projections that year.

Sanford said the cut would reduce state revenues by $62 million annually, but 2 percent growth would add $100 million to state coffers.

The bill is expected to get a warm reception in the Senate.

The House also passed two property tax reduction bills, one that places a 15 percent cap on reassessments and another that would do away with reassessment until a property is sold.

The reassessment bill, sponsored by Rep. Vida Miller, D-Pawleys Island, would cap increases in the values of residential and some commercial property at 15 percent statewide. The measure, which passed 104-5, also would allow counties to increase the tax rate above inflation and growth during reassessment years. A bill passed in 2000 allowed counties to decide whether to cap reassessments. Only Charleston County pursued a cap under the 2000 law. That move set off a long brouhaha among local property owners and officials, eventually being halted by lawsuits.

Another plan, this one sponsored by Rep. Ronnie Townsend, R-Anderson, passed 99-11. It eliminates reassessments until property changes hands, at which time it would be reassessed at fair market value.

House Ways and Means Chairman Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, said the House sent the Senate two options in hopes that at least one will pass.

It's a message "to tell them we are willing to work with you," he said.

The proposals are seen to have a good shot in the Senate, where several members have said they want to reduce property taxes this session.

Also on Wednesday, House members approved a bill to strengthen the state's ban on gay marriages. Sponsored by Rep. Gloria Haskins, R-Greenville, the bill would deny marriage benefits for same-sex couples wed in other states. Typically, states recognize public acts, records and court proceedings of other states.

The measure, which passed by a margin of 103-7, was a reaction to the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that gay couples were entitled to all the rights that go with marriage.

Rep. John Graham Altman III, R-Charleston, said the measure would take care of judges who have "black robe disease," a reference to some people's belief that the judicial system is incorrectly interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

"(The overwhelming vote) tells me that the House of Representatives is in tune with the people they represent," he said. "We want to stop any little insipient San Franciscos."

The bill also would prevent cities, towns and counties from issuing marriage licenses to couples of the same sex.

Such a measure ultimately could be deemed unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution says, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

That may be a stumbling block in the Senate, where a clear majority would support the bill's concept. But the constitutional issue could have some senators scratching their heads.