"It's absolutely not over," said sociology professor Patricia M. Lambert just hours after a meeting where a "Domestic Partner Benefits" proposal was shot down. "It's by no means over."

Proponents of the proposal have been fighting for a year to provide to partners of homosexual employees the same benefits that are given to legally married employees.

But USU legal counsel Craig Simper told approximately 150 employees at the Faculty Forum on the Logan campus that Utah's Amendment 3, approved by popular vote in November and effective Jan. 1, clearly defines marriage as a legal union only between a man and women.

"No other domestic union may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equal legal effect," he said.

Although the legal validity of laws just like Amendment 3 is being challenged beyond Utah's borders, Simper made it clear that this is not a battle his employer wants to fight.

"Utah State University does not want to be the test case and does not intend to be the test case," Simper said Monday afternoon.

Lambert, a member of a USU ad hoc committee that has amassed a wealth of information in support of domestic-partner benefits, said her group is not challenging Utah's legal definition of marriage.

"There are different views on Amendment 3 than Craig Simper presented," Lambert said, citing support from Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., whose election campaign boasted plans to strive for equal rights to same-sex couples, as well as Sen. Gregory Bell, proponent of failed Senate Bill 89 to extend benefits to domestic partners. "We're not proposing to marry people. This is a matter of benefits."

Lambert said USU added sexual orientation to the list of reasons not to discriminate against people in the affirmative action/equal opportunity policy in 1993. For years, USU employees have been told that the benefits package is a measurable part of employee salaries.

"But if not everybody has the same access, than not everybody is being paid the same," Lambert said.

Failure to offer benefits discriminates against homo- sexuals, a fact many universities and private companies are recognizing and remedying, Lambert said.

"We also probably limit our [hiring] pool because there are a lot of people who feel that this is a discriminatory practice," she said.

Monday's USU Faculty Forum was open to faculty, professional and classified employees, but not the press. Faculty Senate President Janis Boettinger said the large crowd probably wasn't at the meeting to delve into the controversy.

"We've opened it up [Faculty Forum] to all faculty members in the past, but this is the first time we've done it for all employees," Boettinger said. "I think the big draw was the discussion about proposed changes to health benefits - [co-payments and premiums]."

Still, Boettinger said, the same-sex benefits discussion did draw comments.

"There are some faculty who still think that we should pursue providing same-sex benefits, but, in terms of Faculty Senate at Utah State University, we are a state institution and we basically need to uphold the state constitution," Boettinger said.

She said Faculty Senate President-elect Derek Mason agrees. "We really can't, at this time, take this any farther. There's really nothing we can do right now until there's a challenge," Boettinger said.