By Barb Berggoetz and Tony Cook

tony.cook@indystar.com

Follow @IndyJonMurray%2C @barbberg and @indystartony on Twitter for more Statehouse coverage.

After two hearings, eight hours of testimony and a controversial committee switch, a proposed same-sex marriage ban is headed to the Indiana House floor as early as Monday.

All nine Republicans on the House Elections Committee voted in favor of the proposed constitutional amendment Wednesday night, while three Democrats were against the move.

During the packed 41/2-hour hearing, young Republicans implored their older party members to send a message of tolerance to the next generation. Gay and lesbian Hoosiers spoke about leaving the state if the amendment passes. A woman with cancer expressed fears that she and her partner won't have the same rights as straight, married couples when facing end-of-life decisions.

Despite the personal appeals and testimony from business and university leaders, Republicans were not persuaded to back off the amendment, which has caused some fissures within their party. After the testimony, Republicans voted with few comments.

"Marriage is between a man and a woman, and I believe the people of Indiana are demanding a right to vote on the amendment," said committee member Rep. Timothy Wesco, R-Osceola.

Democrats who voted against the bill said they feared a divisive campaign if the measure goes to the November ballot and millions of dollars in legal fees if the measure passes.

"When my grandchildren have to watch the ads that are going to be on television," said Rep. Kreg Battles, D-Vincennes, "are you going to be proud? Are we as a body going to be proud of that?"

For the most part, opponents and supporters were quiet and respectful during the testimony, at the urging of committee Chairman Milo Smith, R-Columbus. But at one point, he had a State Police trooper remove a man who was repeatedly giving the "thumbs down" signal during supporters' testimony.

After the hearing, Rep. Woody Burton, R-Whiteland, said his vote was a personal one, even though he realizes the younger generation of Republicans usually don't agree with his views on this issue.

• Erika D. Smith:Get mad, stay mad at Bosma decision over gay marriage ban.

• Cartoonist Gary Varvel:Speaker Bosma and the marriage amendment.

"I guess you can call me old-school," Burton said. "I'm a strong believer in the sanctity of marriage. The socially accepted behavior line has been moving since the '60s. I have to hold true to my conscience. Sometimes you have to step up to what's in your heart."

Much of the testimony was a repeat of that given during a three-hour hearing Jan. 13 before the House Judiciary Committee. The amendment stalled in that committee because there apparently were not enough votes to move the amendment to the full House.

That prompted House Speaker Brian Bosma to take the unusual and controversial step of reassigning the amendment and a companion bill, House Bill 1153, to the Elections Committee, saying he was responding to the wishes of a majority of the GOP caucus. Bosma's move drew howls of protest from amendment opponents and praise from conservative groups that want the public to vote on the amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage and civil unions.

Wednesday's vote didn't surprise opponents.

"I'm more disappointed in the process than I am in the vote," said Megan Robertson, campaign manager for Freedom Indiana, the coalition fighting the amendment. She said all signs pointed to the amendment failing in the Judiciary Committee.

Asked about the chances of defeating it in the full House, Robertson said, "I think there are a lot of folks who voted for it last time who want to switch their votes, and I think we'll see that happen."

The amendment passed the House 70-26 when it first came to a vote in 2011, with bipartisan support. But 19 new Republicans and six new Democrats were elected in 2012. In Indiana, a constitutional amendment needs approval by two separately elected legislatures before it can be voted on in a referendum. If the full House and Senate pass the amendment, it will go to voters in November.

Opponents gathered on the Statehouse's fourth floor after the vote.

"My first really good model of a long-term relationship in which people were sharing their lives but still keeping their individuality was a gay couple," said Ashley Holmes, Indianapolis. "They came along in my life at the same time I started dating the guy in my life that I'm married to. It seems weird to me that I get rights they don't and that their child isn't safe and secure. I don't feel like my relationship is worthier than the one I learned from."

The next battleground will come during the second reading on the House floor, as early as Monday. This is when lawmakers can propose changes before the final reading.

Some Republicans, including Casey Cox, R-Fort Wayne, who voted for the amendment Wednesday, want to remove the second sentence of the amendment, which also bans civil unions and similar arrangements.

Other amendment supporters don't want that to happen because it would reset the multiyear process before the measure goes to a public vote. Advance America, a group working to pass the amendment, said the change of a single word could prevent a vote in November.

During Wednesday's committee hearing, supporters again argued that the amendment is needed to prevent "activist judges" from overturning Indiana's existing state law banning gay marriage. They also argued that after years of debate, voters should have the opportunity to decide the issue.

"I believe the future of marriage in Indiana belongs in the hands of Hoosier voters," said the amendment's author, Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero.

Indiana already has a state law that bans same-sex marriage. Enshrining that ban in the state constitution would make it more difficult to undo.

Several supporters argued that heterosexual marriage is better for society. Children from traditional nuclear families are less likely to struggle with substance abuse, delinquency and poor academic achievement, proponents said.

"Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable," said Brent Jacobus, a Crown Point physician.

Opponents, meanwhile, argued the measure would hurt the ability of Indiana companies to attract talented workers and could threaten same-sex partner benefits offered by some employers.

Carol Trexler, a gay woman battling lung cancer, said she drove to the Statehouse after receiving chemotherapy earlier in the day. She said she and her partner want to be treated as any other married couple.

"I want to be sure Donna is with me at the end and she will have the same rights of a surviving spouse," she said. "We want to have the same protections as our married neighbors."

Call Star reporter Barb Berggoetz at (317) 444-6294. Follow her on Twitter: @barbberg.

Call Star reporter Tony Cook at (317) 444-6081. Follow him on Twitter @indystartony.