If Utahns approve a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the legal fallout likely would end the university's program. Salt Lake City's study of its own domestic partner benefits policy could reach a dead end. And officials in local government and state institutions would be blocked from implementing the idea in the future.

"If the amendment passes, certainly the university would look at it very closely and determine if changes need to be made to our policy," said U. spokeswoman Coralie Alder.

The draft amendment Utah lawmakers placed on the Nov. 2 ballot during the 2004 Legislature goes beyond a simple traditional definition of marriage. Another provision, written by Draper Republican Rep. LaVar Christensen and legislative attorneys, prohibits recognizing or giving common law marriages and civil unions "the same or substantially equivalent effect" as traditional marriages. Domestic-partner benefits such as medical insurance coverage - automatically offered for married couples - could be challenged under that clause.

The University of Utah is the only public institution in the state providing medical insurance benefits to domestic partners. Under the year-old policy, employees' partners are able to purchase the university's medical insurance at full cost, compared with the subsidized monthly premiums paid by married employees.

Leaders at other state institutions have considered changing their policies to cover common-law marriages and same-sex relationships.

Utah State University President Kermit Hall believes the amendment could end faculty senate discussions about a benefits policy in Logan.

"That wording can be interpreted as foreclosing any publicly provided benefit," Hall said. "We could not extend benefits."

Several months ago, Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson asked city human resources staff to review other cities' benefits policies to determine if Utah's capital city should provide medical insurance to domestic partners.

Anderson spokeswoman Deeda Seed said despite legal questions raised by the ballot issue, the benefits study is ongoing. The mayor opposes the constitutional amendment proposal.

"Partner benefits are a way to make households more economically stable," she said. "That's what we all should want: households that have health care resources and stability. It's better for a whole community."

Utah is home to about 24,000 cohabiting, heterosexual adults. Another 3,400 same-sex couples live in Utah. And since 1987, Utah courts have recognized so-called "common-law" marriages for couples that have lived together and acted like husband and wife.

While the amendment explicitly restricts the state and its subdivisions - such as public universities and local governments - from recognizing those relationships, its potential impact on private businesses is uncertain.

American Express, Novell and Qwest all provide domestic partner benefits to their Utah employees.

Three candidates for attorney general raised questions about corporate benefits packages in a joint statement last week critical of the second section of the amendment.

An amendment co-sponsor, West Jordan Republican Sen. Chris Buttars, said such policies are "up to a private employer."

Qwest spokesman Vince Hancock said the Denver-based company's executives believe Utah's amendment will have little impact on their benefit policies. Nebraska voters adopted a similar amendment in 2000 and the company's policy did not change in that state, Hancock noted.

"We believe we will be able to continue providing benefits," Hancock said. "We think this will have no impact on us."