The executive committee of the Family Law Section of the Utah State Bar has decided to vote "no" on a proposed state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.

Chairwoman Louise Knauer said the decision to oppose Amendment 3, which will be on November's ballot, was agreed to unanimously by those at this month's executive committee meeting. It is not reflective of the view of the entire Family Law Section, she said, and judicial members recused themselves from the vote.

"We voted to oppose passage of Amendment 3. Period," Knauer said. "There was a discussion. I'm sure different people have different reasons for opposing it."

Members of the entire Family Law Section will have an opportunity to hear from representatives of both sides of the issue later this week.

Meanwhile, the Utah State Bar has decided not to issue an opinion on the amendment, said spokesman Toby Brown, the bar's director of communications.

While the amendment would define marriage as between a man and woman, Knauer said concerns were raised over the potential impact of the proposed amendment's second sentence, which reads: "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

"It's not clear," Knauer said. "The last thing we want is something unclear. It makes it difficult to advise clients."

The committee is not alone in its view. Opponents have said the amendment's second sentence is vague and could strip from unmarried couples basic legal protections such as protective orders, inheritance and powers of attorney. It could invalidate common-law marriages, opponents say.

"I'm not completely convinced, personally, that all this chain of horribles would happen," Knauer said. "I am convinced there will be litigation. That's what happens."

The sponsor of the amendment, Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, told the Deseret Morning News editorial board this week that the language does nothing more than maintain the status quo in Utah.

It defines marriage as "the legal union between a man and a woman," and prevents the use of "synonyms or substitutions" for marriage, such as civil union or domestic partnership, Christensen said.

"It leaves the Legislature completely free" to provide specific benefits to unmarried people, said Christensen, co-chairman of the Constitutional Defense of Marriage Alliance campaign, which supports the amendment.

Knauer said she's concerned about potential implications on areas such as common law marriage, and on non-adoptive, non-biological parents who have acted as parents.