Supporters of the all-but-dead proposal for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage are trying to resuscitate the legislation, citing a California court's decision to legalize the bonds.

California's Supreme Court on Thursday ruled 4-3 that gay marriage is legal, overturning an initiative voters there approved in 2000. Supporters of the proposed Pennsylvania amendment said that buttresses their argument that a single state judge could allow gay marriage, even though a 1996 ban is already in place.

"Newspapers across the commonwealth editorialized -- and many legislators said -- we don't need an amendment, we already have a law. This [court decision] makes clear that the law is insufficient," said Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute.

Efforts to approve an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriages stalled last week. While the legislation likely would have cleared the Republican-controlled Senate, supporters said it would have been blocked by the Democratic-led House State Government Committee, so Senate sponsor Michael Brubaker, R-Lancaster, had it tabled.

The House committee's chair, Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, is an outspoken critic of the proposal and said she was already getting calls and e-mails yesterday from amendment supporters about the California decision. She said "we can certainly anticipate pressure" on House leaders to move on the bill -- perhaps by assigning it to another committee -- but added she has "no expectation that [leaders] would do that."

Stacey Sobel, executive director of the gay and lesbian advocacy group Equality Advocates Pennsylvania, said the California decision should "not have any impact on the discussion we're having in Pennsylvania."

Partly, that is because she and other amendment opponents have a different court ruling to point to -- a May 7 ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court saying a statewide same-sex marriage ban there prohibits state agencies from awarding health benefits to the partners of gay workers. Opponents of the Pennsylvania proposal claimed it would have unseen legal repercussions if approved.

Reaction to the California decision was somewhat muted in the state's gay and lesbian community, Ms. Sobel said, partly because it is not clear when or if the marriages will be allowed, and partly because activists know that similar rights are far from being allowed in their home state.

If there is one thing supporters and opponents of same-sex marriages might agree on, it is that California and Pennsylvania are a lot different.

"People [in the gay and lesbian community] are really pleased that they made the decision, but the reality of the situation in Pennsylvania is very different," she said.