With full House debate on same-sex marriage expected to begin today, supporters reflected on two key victories in the chamber this week, one the result of a clever legislative maneuver.

Although the measure gained the support of two Republican delegates, pushing it closer to passage in the House, the decision by leadership to assign the bill to two House committees instead of one proved as significant.

After similar legislation failed to get a full vote in the House last year, this year’s same-sex marriage bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, which narrowly passed the bill last year, and the Health and Government Operations Committee, a move that ultimately assured that it had enough votes to move to the full body.

The two committees held a joint hearing and voted on the bill as a single group, with 25 delegates giving the bill a favorable vote, 18 voting against, and one passing and offering no vote.

As it happened, the bill did not have enough votes to advance out of the Judiciary Committee — 11 members voted against it, 10 for it and Del. Sam Arora (D-Dist. 19) of Silver Spring passed. It had more support in Health and Government Operations, with 15 members voting in favor and seven members voting against. Del. Patrick McDonough (R-Dist. 7) of Middle River was not present.

The latter committee usually is responsible for legislation dealing with civil rights, said Del. Peter Hammen (D-Dist. 46) of Baltimore, the health committee chair.

Judiciary Committee Chair Joseph Vallario (D-Dist. 27A) of Upper Marlboro, who voted in favor of last year’s bill to break a tie and send it to the floor, voted “no” at this year’s committee vote.

The bill went before the full House on Wednesday, where it was laid over for a day so delegates could prepare amendments. Floor debate initially was expected to begin Thursday evening, but was postponed once again until this morning.

Similar legislation passed the Senate last year but did not receive a full vote in the House.

This year, the bill is sponsored by Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) for the first time and includes additional language exempting religious organizations from having to provide services to same-sex couples. The Senate version of this year’s bill has not yet received a committee vote.

Same-sex marriage advocates say the additional language and O’Malley’s sponsorship have helped garner more support for the bill, and at least two Republicans have said they will to vote in favor of this year’s legislation, Del. Robert Costa (R-Dist. 33B) of Deale and Del. A. Wade Kach (R-Dist. 5B) of Cockeysville.

“My thoughts on the issue of same-sex marriage have evolved in recent months,” Kach said in a statement, adding that he was moved by the testimony of families and by the bill’s protections for religious groups.

Kach introduced an amendment Thursday night to push back the effective date of the bill from October until January 2013, which was accepted by House members.

Kach and Costa join Sen. Allan Kittleman (R-Dist. 9) of West Friendship in supporting the bill. Kittleman has supported the measure for the past two years and is a co-sponsor of this year’s Senate bill.

“This is not a partisan issue,” Kittleman told a cheering crowd at a rally Monday night in Annapolis. “This is an issue about freedom, liberty and equality.”

Tuesday’s voting session included discussion of several proposed amendments, all of which failed, and offered a preview of the heated debate expected to follow on the floor.

The proposed amendments included two by Del. Neil Parrot (R-Dist. 2) of Hagerstown that attempted to ensure that public school teachers not be penalized for refusing to teach about same-sex marriage if it conflicted with their religious beliefs and would have given parents greater power to prevent their children being taught about sex education and the “non-traditional family.”

Another amendment, proposed by Del. Tiffany Alston (D-Dist. 24) of Mitchellville, sought to push the implementation date of the governor’s bill until after the November election, a move Alston said would help make sure that a possible voter referendum was not overturned in court.

Del. Mike McDermott (R-Dist. 38) of Pocomoke City, who opposes the bill, said the issue should be decided by voters and expressed disbelief that a decision such as whether to allow slot machines would automatically go to referendum, but same-sex marriage would not.

“We are afraid of the citizens of Maryland,” McDermott said.

A passionate defense of the bill came from Del. Shawn Z. Tarrant (D-Dist. 40) of Baltimore City, who described how the arguments made by some opponents had strengthened his support. Tarrant invoked the memory of his grandparents, who had lived through segregation.

“To think that someone would come before this body and suggest that we should go back to those days because they’re same-sex couples, and they should be discriminated against, and we’re going to put that into law is ludicrous,” Tarrant said.

dleaderman@gazette.net