PHOENIX — Courting a possible veto, the House voted narrowly Wednesday to strip 12 phrases from the state’s 9-11 memorial located across the street from the Capitol.

 The 32-26 vote came after Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said the comments are “politically charged’’ or “paint an exclusively negative picture’’ of the state. The result, he said, is some people will not visit the ring-shaped monument unveiled in 2006 on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks.

 But Rep. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, said HB 2700 is a slap at the Sikh community. That’s because two of the phrases that would be removed recall the shootings of two Sikhs who were attacked in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks by assailants who mistakenly thought they were Muslims.

 The measure now goes to the Senate. Assuming it gains approval there, that leaves the final decision to Gov. Janet Napolitano.

 She said Wednesday she is not familiar with the latest version of the measure. But two months ago Napolitano blasted an earlier version which would have removed all 54 phrases and replaced them instead with a timeline of the events on the day of the attacks.

 Wednesday’s vote continues what has been an often acrimonious debate about how the state should memorialize the event.

 A special state commission which raised the money privately for the monument’s construction chose 54 phrases its members said reflected not only what happened that day but also some of the aftermath as well as various feelings expressed. Criticism came almost immediately after the memorial was unveiled.

 Commission members subsequently agreed to remove two phrases, an erroneous one about a mistaken U.S. air attack on an Afghan village and another referring to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden addressing the American people. They also agreed to erect some freestanding panels to explain both the event and the memorial.

 Rep. Bob Stump, R-Peoria, said the problem is that the commission was overly concerned about being “even handed’’ in how it viewed the events surrounding that day as well as relevant history leading up to it. And that, he said, is a bad thing for a memorial. “In so doing, the memorial as it now stands highlights how deep the roots of moral relativism have spread,’’ he said.

 For example, Stump said, one inscription HB 2700 would remove reads, “You don’t win battles of terrorism with more battles.’’

 He said that equates terrorist fighting Americans with Americans fighting terrorists.

 But Stump said the monument ignores a root cause of terrorism. “And that is the existence of absolute evil,’’ he said. Yet the word “evil’’ does not appear on the memorial, as there are those who contend there “are no moral imperatives.’’

 Kavanagh had problems with other phrases he said were inappropriate for a monument, such as “Foreign-born Americans afraid,’’ “Feeling of invincibility lost’’ and a reference to a 2002 congressional hearing about why the FBI and CIA did not prevent the attacks.

 He said passage of the bill “will have removed phrases that are keeping people away, that are preventing this from being ... a place where all Arizonans gather to commemorate, to mourn, to reflect.’’ Farley, however, said it won’t end the controversy.