INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — A California Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex couples to marry in that state has renewed debate on whether Indiana should amend its constitution to ban gay marriage.

"The ruling is wrong, detrimental to the families of California and creates a dangerous precedent for the rest of America," Eric Miller, founder of the conservative group Advance America, said Friday.

"Marriage between one man and one woman is at risk in Indiana, too," he said. "Indiana's constitution must be amended to protect marriage."

Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, who helped kill a prolonged, legislative effort aimed at amending the state constitution with a ban on same-sex marriage, noted that state law already bans gay marriage and that law was upheld by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

"At no time in the history of our state have we set our compass by the state of California," said Pelath, chairman of the House Rules Committee. "Events in other states have nothing to do with our state.

In a 4-3 ruling Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down its state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough. Same-sex couples could marry there in as little as a month, the time it typically takes for justices' opinions to become final.

Religious and social conservatives in California are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the ruling and ban gay marriage.

Massachusetts in 2004 became the first and so far only state to legalize gay marriage. Twenty-six states have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

Doing the same in Indiana has been a contentious issue since 2004, when the Republican-controlled Indiana Senate passed a resolution to begin the process of amending the constitution to ban gay marriage. Democratic Rep. Patrick Bauer of South Bend, who was speaker at the time, denied attempts by Republicans to advance or even debate the resolution in the House.

Bauer said state law already banned gay marriage and said House Republicans were simply trying to create a false crisis and a divisive campaign issue. He has repeatedly made similar statements since.

Amending the state constitution requires a resolution to pass two consecutive, separately elected General Assemblies and then win approval in a statewide vote.

When Republicans controlled both chambers in 2005, they approved a constitutional resolution to ban gay marriage. But it still needed to gain passage in both chambers again in 2007 or 2008 and then be voted on by the people in the 2008 general election.

Democrats regained control of the House in late 2006 and Bauer became speaker again. In the 2007 session, Pelath gave the resolution a committee hearing after it had passed the Senate. The panel voted 5-5 on the resolution, so it failed to pass.

Some who voted against it said they were concerned about unintended consequences on domestic partner benefits or domestic violence statutes. Several Indiana companies have also spoken out against the proposal, saying it would send a message to prospective employees that Indiana is not welcoming or inclusive.

The Senate passed the resolution again this past session, but Pelath refused to give it a hearing. That meant the process of amending the constitution with a gay marriage ban would have to start all over again.

If a constitutional ban is passed in the 2009 or 2010 sessions, it would also have to pass again in either 2011 or 2012 to be eligible for a statewide vote in November 2012.

House Minority Leader Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said the California ruling underscored a concern many lawmakers have about a handful of judges being able to decide one of the most fundamental elements of our social fabric instead of elected lawmakers and the people. He said his caucus still stands firmly for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

He was asked if House Republicans would make that stand a major campaign issue going into the November election.

"As long as people care about an issue it will be brought up by campaigns on one side or the other, and people do care about this issue," he said. Democrats control the chamber now with a 51-49 majority.

Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels was asked Friday if Indiana needed a constitutional ban on gay marriage. He has not pushed for one, and unlike bills, governors in Indiana do not have authority to act on resolutions to amend the constitution.

"I've said before I would vote for one if it were put on the ballot to protect against this very outcome, to protect the right of the people of Indiana to make this choice and not have it dictated to them," he said.

Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jill Long Thompson said she was opposed to a constitutional same-sex marriage ban because it is already against the law for gay couples to marry in Indiana, and many business leaders have said it would hurt the state's ability to attract jobs.

She said she supported civil unions that would allow same-sex couples to have some of the legal rights married people have.