INDIANAPOLIS (AP) – Hundreds of e-mails. Petitions with thousands of signatures. Phone calls. Letters. Radio ads. Statehouse rallies.

Supporters of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage continue to press the issue, despite a key lawmaker’s firm stance that he will not give the proposal a hearing.

Without that hearing this year, the amendment appears dead – good news for opponents. But they, too, are pouring on the pressure, hoping to offset efforts by supporters.

At the center of the storm of e-mails and petitions stands Rep. Scott Pelath, a Democrat from Michigan City who chairs the House Rules Committee. Pelath hasn’t budged from his position, saying the amendment is unnecessary since Indiana law already bans same-sex marriage.

“You only amend the constitution when you absolutely have to,” Pelath said. “We already have a law that’s been upheld in court, and there’s just no reason to do it.”

House Speaker Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, agrees. He has said repeatedly that he does not know of any same-sex marriages in the state and that lawmakers should instead focus on property tax relief this session.

Conservative groups say it is crucial for the amendment to get a hearing this year because if it passes it could be on the November 2008 ballot. If it doesn’t, the years-long process of amending the constitution would start over, and the earliest it could pass would be 2012.

The proposal’s sponsor, Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Wheatfield, said he’s not sure if he’ll push the resolution next year if it fails now.

“Obviously I feel strongly about the issue, but I’d have to give serious consideration whether to bring the issue up again if it has little future in the House of Representatives,” he said.

Conservative activist Eric Miller is urging members of his Advance America group to contact their representatives and ask for a vote before the legislative session ends in mid-March.

“A delay by Speaker Bauer this year results in a four-year delay for Hoosier families, and that’s not right,” Miller said.

The American Family Association of Indiana, meanwhile, delivered a petition with nearly 8,000 signatures urging leaders to give the matter a hearing and vote. The organization’s political action committee paid more than $4,000 for radio ads called “Confused Children” running in several areas represented by members of the House Rules Committee.

“If my dad married a man, who would be my mom?” a child asks in the ad, which urges people to call their representatives.

“Regardless of what a legislator thinks about the issue, this is about the people’s vote,” said Micah Clark, the association’s director. “I think Representative Pelath needs to step aside.”

Both Clark and Miller say their groups will remind voters of lawmakers’ stances come election time.

Amendment opponents worry that all the pressure from supporters might eventually get to House leaders.

“We still want to stay vigilant,” said Brandon Monson, communications chair with the gay rights organization Indiana Equality. “We want to make sure we do everything we can.”

The group’s Web sites allows people to e-mail thanks to Pelath for his “courage and leadership” on the issue. On Monday, more than 200 people gathered for an Indiana Equality rally at the Statehouse.

Susan Hazer, of Indianapolis, said the proposed amendment would write discrimination into the state constitution. She noted that there are still weeks left in the legislative session, and wanted to urge lawmakers not to try to revive the proposal.

“You never know what’s going to happen,” Hazer said. “It’s really not totally dead until the legislative session ends.”

Several Indiana companies, including Cummins Inc. and Eli Lilly and Co., have also spoken out against the proposal, saying it would send a message to prospective employees that Indiana is not welcoming or inclusive. Pelath also said he has heard from law professors worried about the amendment’s wording.

The proposed amendment contains two parts. The first states that marriage in Indiana is the union of one man and one woman. The second includes a phrase that says state law “may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

Opponents have argued that the amendment could have unintended consequences on domestic violence laws or domestic partner benefits offered at some companies and universities. But amendment supporters say court rulings in other states have helped clarify those issues.

Pelath said he has received “hundreds and hundreds” of e-mails about the issue, very few from his district. People may have thought a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was more important a few years ago, before courts upheld Indiana’s law, he said, although he realizes the issue will likely come up in elections.

“We chose to do these jobs,” Pelath said. “That’s part of the business. I’ve been through this a couple of times and lived to tell about it.”