Charlotte (left) and Dawn Egler married in Canada and have a son born to Charlotte (not to both). -- Frank Espich / The Star

The national debate over same-sex marriages came to Indiana on Monday, with arguments spilling out of the Indiana Court of Appeals and into the court of public opinion.

As attorneys for the Indiana Civil Liberties Union and the state argued the merits of a state law limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman, the country's largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender political organization launched a national advertising campaign in Indianapolis.

The ads by the Human Rights Campaign are aimed at conservatives and argue that amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriages is too drastic a step for dealing with a social issue, said Sally Green, associate field director for the group. The ads are appearing in nine other areas as well.

The first advertisement ran Monday on Page A4 of The Star. Radio ads are to begin today on WIBC-AM (1070) during broadcasts by conservative talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura Schlesinger and Greg Garrison.

"There is a strong conservative argument to be made against a Constitutional amendment, and we would like the people in Indiana to hear about it," Green said.

The debate over same-sex marriage has been heating up since summer, when Canada began allowing gays and lesbians to marry. It intensified in November, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that state's ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional.

In New Jersey, where a legal challenge similar to the one in Indiana is pending, legislators on Monday recognized same-sex partnerships, giving domestic partners access to medical benefits, insurance and other legal rights. Gay-rights activists said they would continue to push for the right to marry.

Those developments have drawn heat from conservative Christian organizations such as the Washington-based Family Research Council, which has pledged to make same-sex marriage an issue in this year's elections and supports a constitutional amendment.

The proposed amendment got a lukewarm response from Republican Sen. Richard Lugar, who said Monday he was willing to listen to both sides -- but probably not ready to support such an amendment.

"Attempts to amend the Constitution have to be looked at very, very seriously," he said.

Spokeswoman Meg Keck said Democrat Sen. Evan Bayh supports the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which he voted for in 1996, and is studying the proposals being discussed. The 1996 bill prohibited marriage between members of the same sex in federal law, and provided that no state is required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Judge Ezra H. Friedlander, who presided over oral arguments Monday in the challenge to Indiana's marriage law, called the debate "an issue of great interest to the state."

Indiana had 10,219 same-sex households in 2000, according to the census. The number represents a 428 percent increase from 1990.

The case before the Court of Appeals stems from a suit filed by three same-sex couples -- Ruth Morrison and Teresa Stephens, David Wene and David Squire, and Charlotte and Dawn Egler. The Eglers traveled to Canada in July to wed legally there, and before that had gone to Vermont to form a civil union. But all three couples were denied marriage licenses in 2002 by clerks in Hendricks and Marion counties.

Marion Superior Judge S.K. Reid, who ruled the state is justified in allowing only opposite-sex couples to marry, dismissed the original suit. The law, she wrote, "promotes the state's interest in encouraging procreation to occur in a context where both biological parents are present to raise the child."

In arguments before James S. Kirsch and Michael P. Barnes and Friedlander, Deputy Attorney General Thomas Fisher said the union of a man and a woman is the basic building block of society. He also said allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry would lead to the downfall of traditional marriage.

But Ken Falk, legal director for the ICLU, said the notion of family has evolved to the point that the sex of those involved should not be a factor.

"I challenge you to look at Dawn and Charlotte Egler and their son and say that's not a family," he said.

"This is change. This is difficult. This is something the founders weren't thinking about in the 1850s," Falk said.

"But they also weren't thinking about women being attorneys or blacks marrying whites. The Constitution evolves from a common understanding that the state is not to intrude on fundamental life choices."

The judges peppered Fisher and Falk with questions, including the differences between the Indiana law and the Massachusetts ban found unconstitutional last year.

Barnes asked Falk what outcome he was seeking.

"We want the court to rule that, absent a provision by the legislature to allow civil unions, same-sex couples must be allowed to marry," Falk replied.

And the judge asked Fisher about the difference between the state's ban on same-sex marriage and previous laws banning inter-racial marriages. Those laws barring inter-racial marriages were accepted by the majority of society at the time they were in place.

Fisher said marriage came about to deal with the children from a union of a man and a woman, while the prohibition on interracial unions was eventually overturned because it was based solely on racial prejudice.

The judges gave no indication when they might rule on the case, but Charlotte Egler said she felt good about how the day had gone.

"I liked the questions the judges were asking," she said.