Its words, as supporters said last year before Amendment 3 went to a vote, are simple. Their meaning, however, is not.

On this page, we urged voters to defeat the amendment because of its ambiguity, although we support the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman. We feared the amendment would prevent domestic-partner benefits for unmarried couples, and so did many other Utahns.

But amendment supporters pooh-poohed those fears, saying it would do no such thing. Hesitant voters bought those assurances, and 60 percent cast ballots for the amendment.

Fortunately, Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson recently took the bold step of rewriting city policy to allow unmarried partners of city employees to share health benefits now offered only to the families of married city workers. The city's insurance carrier and an Arizona Christian group have taken the issue to court, where it was destined to go from Election Day 2004.

Only a court can interpret this law. How the court rules will determine whether Salt Lake City or any government can legally provide benefits to unmarried partners under Amendment 3. A court ruling will not, however, answer the question of what the amendment's framers really had in mind.

Despite their claims before the election, did they write the law not merely to define marriage but to purposely prevent gay and lesbian couples from receiving any of the same benefits extended to their married peers?

If promises of "compassion and fairness" were just pre-election campaign rhetoric, as it now seems, then the pro-amendment groups are guilty of a colossal bait-and-switch.

Whether the consequences were intended or not, Amendment 3 is hurting nontraditional couples and families. This year the Legislature defeated a bill that would have permitted domestic-partner benefits; the Salt Lake County Council defeated a proposal to extend benefits to unmarried county workers, citing Amendment 3; Utah State University officials made a similar decision.

Utahns may have been enticed with disingenuous speeches by devious people, then handed a law that is so broad it sanctions discrimination by preventing equal treatment.

If that is how Amendment 3 must be interpreted, it should be repealed.