The House stepped closer Tuesday to advancement of a controversial bill prohibiting individuals or religious entities from being required in Kansas to deliver services contrary to religious sentiments on gay marriage.

The legislation that was debated for about two hours in the GOP-led House was characterized by advocates as an essential shield from government sanctions for anyone refusing to violate sincerely held religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage. The bill advanced to final action Wednesday on a vote of 72-42.

Democrats and other critics framed the bill as a discriminatory strike against Kansans in anticipation federal courts might overturn state bans — including Kansas' — on the definition of legal marriage of anyone other than a man and a woman.

"The bill is narrowly tailored to a small number of folks," said Rep. Charles Macheers, a Shawnee Republican championing House Bill 2453. "It's on the right side of history."

Rep. Louis Ruiz, D-Kansas City, said giving rise to a Kansas law targeting people engaged in gay and lesbian relationships amounted to discrimination. He referenced the wrenching conflict 150 years ago about Kansas entering the union as a slave or free state and the historical legacy of "Bleeding Kansas."

"Kansas may not be bleeding, but we may have inflicted a wound," he said. "I believe marriage is a combination of people who love each other. Government should not interfere in that."

Under the bill likely to be forwarded to the Senate, individuals or religious entities in Kansas, based on religious belief, couldn’t be sanctioned by government for declining to provide "services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

The bill also would shield entities and individuals from punishment for declining to "solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement" or to "treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid."

The House rejected a motion to send the bill back to the House Federal and State Affairs Committee after the panel's chairman declared it would be returned to the chamber unchanged. Two amendments offered by Rep. Don Hill, R-Emporia, to weaken the measure were deflected on voice votes.

In 2005, 70 percent of Kansans voting in a statewide referendum endorsed an amendment to the Kansas Constitution prohibiting recognition or performance of same-sex marriages or civil unions.

Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the legislation was important because the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Kansas, could rule in one or two years to overturn state bans on same-sex marriage.

The core principle of religious liberty should be defended by all in the House, he said.

"It's a defining issue," Kinzer said. "I think this is something that should unite us, not divide us. The state should never force a person to perform an action he or she believes is wrong."

Examples of Kansans persecuted for opposing same-sex unions weren't shared during House debate on the bill, but Rep. Mark Kahrs, R-Wichita, said the potential was real. He referenced stories about a Washington florist, Oregon baker, Colorado caterer and New Mexico photographer who faced possible legal action for declining to serve same-sex couples on religious grounds.

"When is selective discrimination permissible?" countered Rep. Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence. "I would say, ‘Never.’ "