Though the number of states adopting bans on same-sex marriage grows, the odds appear slim that Indiana lawmakers will give serious consideration to such a constitutional amendment next year.

It's not because social conservatives won't push for it again.

But after the effort died twice, the long and complicated process of amending the constitution would have to start all over again, and no one in the Statehouse seems prepared to go to the ramparts.

Even the Republican lawmaker who has pushed the measure in the past says he doesn't plan to do so in the 2009 session.

"I think the issue is still relevant in that it continues to be debated in a variety of states and continues to be heard by a variety of courts," said state Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Wheatfield.

"However, if action is to be taken this time, it would be my intent to see it start in the House, because that's been the holdup in the past, and until that legislative entanglement is resolved, there's not much to be achieved through the Senate yet again."

The Indiana Senate, controlled by Republicans, has voted three times to pass the amendment. The House, however, is controlled by Democrats, and Speaker B. Patrick Bauer has not shown a willingness to allow a floor vote on the issue.

Bauer, D-South Bend, has said he thinks Indiana's law prohibiting same-sex marriages is enough.

"I've been asking people to show me that the current law has been broken, and they haven't showed me yet. I want to see the couples that were illegally married," he said earlier this year when asked about the prospects of a constitutional amendment.

Conservatives aren't deterred.

"We're not going to give up just because Speaker Pat Bauer has blocked it in the past," said Eric Miller, founder of the conservative activist group Advance America, which has pushed for the amendment's passage.

"It's right to protect marriage between a man and a woman, and it's right for the people of Indiana to have a chance to vote on this."

Walter Botich, legislative chairman of Indiana Equality and one of the leading opponents of the amendment, said lawmakers have more pressing issues they should focus on during the 2009 session.

"I would think there are several other things that would be on my agenda as a legislator that I would want to deal with before I started down this path of issues that people, quite frankly, have lost interest in," Botich said.

"We've got an economy that is not doing well, we've got people who are losing jobs, and yet some people want to harp on these same issues that are pulling people apart at a time we should be coming together to solve these big problems."

Though marriage under Indiana law is defined as the union between a man and a woman, proponents of the amendment say they want to protect their position in the state constitution to prevent judges from misinterpreting the law or overruling it.

Opponents contend not only that current law is sufficient but that an amendment would constitutionally shield a form of discrimination.

Nationwide, 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages. Arizona, California and Florida approved their measures in November.

Rep. P. Eric Turner, R-Marion, said that as other states continue to add amendments, Indiana becomes more of an "anomaly."

"Certainly there are those, including the speaker, who say we have a law, and I understand that rationale," he said. "But we also have judges who sometimes interpret the law differently than we intended, thus the need for a constitutional amendment."

Turner, Miller and others have pushed for a floor vote in the House, believing the amendment would pass there. They have good reason to. In 2005, the House overwhelmingly passed the measure, 76-23.

In the past two legislative sessions, however, the amendment hasn't made it as far as the floor, dying instead in the House Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee.

During this year's session, lawmakers tried to pressure that committee into adopting the measure by presenting a petition signed by nearly 60 House members who said they would vote for the amendment, including seven Democrats.

But the committee's chairman, Rep. Scott Pelath, refused to hear the matter, saying at the time: "We don't have any gay marriages. It's already against the law in this state."

Pelath, D-Michigan City, did not return phone calls seeking his comment on an amendment's chances in 2009.

Turner vowed to continue to pressure Democrats.

"We'll just have to see how it shakes out," he said. "I'm hopeful there will be enough on both sides of the aisle to persuade the speaker and his leadership team that it's time to move it."

If a constitutional amendment were to pass in 2009 or 2010, it would have to be approved by the General Assembly again in 2011 or 2012 before voters would have the chance to vote on the measure in the 2012 general election.

The 2009 General Assembly will convene Jan. 7.