Efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriages may have fizzled out in the Senate Wednesday, at least for now.

But in Utah, the debate is just beginning. Voters here will decide in November whether to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman in the Utah Constitution. Those who are organizing campaigns on both sides say the debate in Washington is not likely to directly impact their efforts here.

People who gathered on Wednesday evening for a volunteer orientation session for the Don't Amend Alliance — against amending the Utah Constitution — said at most, the failed procedural vote in Washington brought attention to the issue.

Shane Hutchison believes people for and against the Utah amendment will only fight harder. "It'll have a strong effect both ways," he said.

The failed procedural vote in the U.S. Senate was no surprise to Gayle Ruzicka, president of the family values group Utah Eagle Forum. Ruzicka is organizing a campaign in favor of the state amendment, which would also prevent the recognition of relationships that give the "same or substantially equivalent legal effect as a marriage."

"It was exactly what everybody expected," Ruzicka said. "I would just say that maybe this is the way it's supposed to be. (Marriage) is not a federal issue, it's a state issue."

Scott McCoy, who heads the Don't Amend Alliance, said the national debate will likely have a "neutral" impact on the state debate, but he does see it as a positive sign.

"We don't need to be amending our foundational document" to define marriage, he said. "That same rationale can apply here. We have laws here on the books."

The state's entire congressional delegation has expressed support for the federal amendment, saying it is needed to prevent judicial decisions from overturing state marriage laws. They cite the Massachusetts Supreme Court's ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in that state.

Ruzicka disagreed with Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who has said a federal constitutional amendment would be the only way to give states a say on the marriage matter. She said a state amendment "had better be enough."

"It would be a really sad situation if the day ever comes that the federal government has to have a constitutional amendment to define marriage," she said. "This is not the role of the federal government."

Michael Mitchell, executive director of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah, disagreed with the notion of "activist judges."

"We have courts and judges for a purpose. It's widely recognized that part of that purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights," he said.

Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, who supports the state amendment, said it's necessary because there isn't enough support to pass a federal constitutional amendment. He said the failure to move forward in Washington would likely create a heightened sense that the state amendment is needed.

"People are saying, 'Why are we doing this? There will be a federal amendment,' " he said. "There won't be a federal amendment; we need to take state action."

---

Contributing: Laura Hancock

E-mail: dbulkeley@desnews.com