A proposal to amend the state constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman stands little chance of success, advocates on both sides of the issue agree. But even the suggestion of an amendment could re-ignite a debate over gay marriage in New Hampshire.

"If nothing else, this could bring the idea and the debate back onto the House floor and before the public," said Rep. Jim MacKay, a Concord Republican who sits on the Legislature's gay marriage commission and opposes the constitutional amendment. "This could start a much longer-term debate, and from a societal point of view, it's about time we began that."

One day after a state commission voted to recommend changing the constitution to forbid gay marriage, few State House leaders seemed eager to support the idea. Gov. John Lynch said he opposed gay marriage but didn't think a constitutional amendment was a step worth taking.

"There is no need to amend our constitution to do what is already set in law," Lynch said in a written statement. "Our time is better spent focusing on the real challenges facing New Hampshire and working to unite people, not divide them."

Any effort to change the state constitution faces a high hurdle. For an amendment to pass, it must be approved by 60 percent of both the House and the Senate and then two-thirds of voters.

New Hampshire law already defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. But some opponents of same-sex marriage are worried by a 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that overturned prohibitions against same-sex marriage. Since then, 11 other states have amended their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The New Hampshire Legislature established the panel last year to examine the legal implications of extending some form of marriage to same sex couples. The panel isn't due to issue a final report until December, and its vote to endorse a constitutional amendment on Wednesday came as a surprise to many.

Reaction in the State House yesterday was subdued. Deputy Speaker Ken Weyler, a Republican from Kingston, said House leadership hadn't yet discussed the need for an amendment.

"We probably won't get to it for a while," Weyler said.

He added that an endorsement from the committee came across as stronger than a proposal from a single representative.

Jim Rivers, a spokesman for the House majority office, said he doubted House leadership would take a position on the issue.

"I'm not sure this is something we would weigh in on," Rivers said. "This is probably an issue people will have to vote according to their consciences."

Sen. Jack Barnes, who proposed the amendment, said he doubts the idea would ever get through the Legislature. But he said he wanted to give voters an opportunity to see how their representatives felt about the issue.

"The main reason I want this to come forward, I think people in this state should have an opportunity to weigh in on this matter, and people have a right to know how the people they elected feel on certain issues,"said Barnes, a Republican from Raymond.

Rep. Gail Morrison, a Democrat from Tilton who favors legalizing same-sex marriages, said Barnes's approach was "an unfortunate political move."

Single page