PHOENIX (AP) -- A California court ruling provided ammunition for supporters of a proposed Arizona constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, and they called on a key lawmaker to allow final legislative action to put the issue to voters.

The California Supreme Court's 4-3 ruling on Thursday overturned a voter-approved law that stated that the state recognized only a marriage between a man and a woman.

"The California decision shows exactly what we want to avoid in Arizona," said Cathi Herrod, head of the Center for Arizona Policy and spokeswoman for a coalition backing an Arizona proposal for a state constitutional amendment.

"Judges in California today completely ignored the will of the people. A constitutional amendment in Arizona is the only way to protect the definition of marriage," Herrod added.

A midlevel state appeals court in 2003 upheld Arizona's ban in a ruling on a challenge filed by a homosexual couple. The state Supreme Court in 2004 declined to review that ruling, effectively upholding it.

The Arizona Constitution, like those of other states, represents a set of fundamental mandates by the people to their government. Changing the Constitution requires voter approval.

The California ruling undercuts arguments by opponents of the Arizona amendment that it is unnecessary because of the ban already in state law, said Ron Johnson, a spokesman for the Arizona Catholic Conference.

Without a constitutional change, "there's nothing saying that the Arizona Supreme Court couldn't take similar action in the future," Johnson said. "This only strengthens our case."

As voters in seven other states approved bans on same-sex marriage in 2006, Arizona voters narrowly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that included wording interpreted as also banning recognition of civil unions and domestic partnerships.

The 2008 proposal, which supporters contend is needed to protect the institution of marriage, does not have that additional wording.

A resolution (SCR1042) to put an Arizona constitutional ban on the November ballot is pending in the Senate after being narrowly passed by the House. Senate President Tim Bee declined Thursday to say whether or when the Senate would act on it.

Bee, a Tucson Republican who sponsored a Senate version of the resolution, said he and other legislative leaders are now focused on the state's budget crisis and have not yet sifted through various proposed ballot measures.

Decisions on which proposals to advance to final legislative votes include assessments of support and opposition and campaign funding, Bee said. "As I have said all session, decisions about ballot measures will be made toward the end of session after the budget is completed."

Herd said supporters are confident that enough senators support the resolution for it to pass.

"Sen. Bee committed to sponsor the marriage amendment in February and we expect him to keep his commitment," she said.

A leading opponent of the Arizona proposal said the California ruling has little, if any, effect on the debate in Arizona.

"In Arizona, marriage is and has been the same forever, since the inception of Arizona. There is no threat to the current definition of marriage," said state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix.

That's in contrast to California, which has state-recognized domestic partnerships and where state lawmakers have passed bills - ultimately vetoed - to legalize same-sex marriage.

"I think this really is about politics and not about marriage," Sinema said. "Personally I think this is offensive.

Herrod said the California ruling shows that a state constitutional amendment is needed to bind state judges. Otherwise, down the road, the California ruling could put legal pressure on Arizona to recognize same-sex marriages of Californians who subsequently move to Arizona, she said.

However, a federal constitutional amendment would be needed to similarly bind federal courts considering similar questions, she acknowledged.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.