PHOENIX  A new strategy  and more money  apparently has given supporters of a ban on gay marriage the victory that eluded them in 2006.

Preliminary results show the measure has the backing of more than 56 percent of voters. Strong support in Maricopa County  and most of the rest of the state  overcame the narrow vote against Proposition 102 in Pima County. That lead exists even with Pima County voting narrowly against it.

Two years ago the measure backers placed on the ballot sought not only to outlaw samesex marriage but also to bar any law that recognized civil unions. That proposal also would have banned governments from providing benefits like health insurance to the domestic partners of their employees.

It was narrowly defeated.

This year the proponents of Proposition 102 decided to narrow their focus, sticking simply to the issue of who can marry.

“The goal was to make the proposal really clear,’’ said Kelly Molique, a spokeswoman for the pro102 campaign.

She said that, in turn, led to the other key difference between the 2006 and 2008 races: Money.

In 2006, foes outspent proponents. This year backers have built a warchest in excess of $7.6 million, relying heavily on contributions of $10,000 or more from individual families.

The two committees opposing the measure have collected less than 10 percent of that.

And the Center for Arizona Policy, which bills itself as promoting “family values,’’ has its own “get out the vote’’ effort aimed at getting those in support of the measure to the polls.

State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, DPhoenix, said all that spending by proponents could not help but affect the outcome.

``I think if there had been an even match of money it would have been a no-brainer,’’ she said.

Sinema said one thing that put foes at a fiscal disadvantage is the ballot fight in California where a similar constitutional amendment is going to voters.

The big difference is that gay marriage is legal there  or, at least, has been since earlier this year when that state’s Supreme Court overturned the statutory ban. National gay rights groups have funnelled much of their money into the campaign against Proposition 8 in hopes of preserving a right that exists.

By contrast, gay marriage already is illegal in Arizona by virtue of state law, a law the state Court of Appeals upheld in a ruling the state Supreme Court declined to review.

As of early this morning, the vote in California was still too close to call.

Sinema said what money didn’t go to California went to electing Barack Obama.

``I gotta tell you, I don’t regret that choice for a moment,’’ she said.

That California court decision  along with a more recent one in Connecticut  might have been a factor in another way in the outcome of the election here.

“It shows Arizonans that statutory law can be changed at any time,’’ Molique said, meaning that a court could choose to interpret the state constitution to conclude that gays do, in fact, have a right to wed.

Proponents of Proposition 102 used the news reports of both rulings to hammer away at the ability of judges to overrule state law. That, they argued, is exactly why the definition of marriage, while already in statute, needs to be enshrined in the constitution.

Sinema, however, said she doubted that voters were affected by the California or Connecticut rulings.

The fight also took on religious overtones, with Sinema claiming that the whole effort to define marriage as solely between one man and one woman was really a public relations effort of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.

She said officials of the Mormon church, as it is more commonly known, have become embarrassed by the publicity surrounding the offshoot Fundamentalist Church of Latterday Saints which believes in polygamy, and whose leader, Warren Jeffs, faces charges in connection with arranging the marriage of underage girls to older men.

But Rep. Kirk Adams, RMesa, who is a member of the mainstream Mormon church, said that argument holds no water because his religion specifically disavowed polygamy in 1890.

Support for the measure has been broader than the LDS church, including several evangelical groups as well as the Arizona Catholic Conference which lobbies on behalf of the state’s two Catholic bishops.

One other difference between now and 2006 also helped supporters of Proposition 102.

Two years ago, they had to gather signatures to put the measure on the ballot, hiring paid circulators. This year backers cobbled together enough votes at the Legislature to have the proposal referred directly, saving the time and cost of petition gathering.