Because Harvard has many employees who reside overseas, or in other parts of the country, such as in Washington D.C., not all couples fall under Massachusetts law.

Currently, as long as the couples can register as an official domestic partnership somewhere in the United States, - they are eligible for the domestic partner benefits, Touborg said.

“We do have five partners who are registered in other places,” Touborg said.

And change will likely come at a slower pace in these places, Parry said.

“While we can all hope that enlightened legislators and citizens will vote down the proposed state constitutional amendment, Harvard also has employees in other states where change will come much more slowly,” Parry said. “So I think the administration’s decision to maintain the status quo is prudent and appropriate.”

Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, who spoke at a Harvard forum last month, said she believes that employers who drop the domestic partnership benefits are acting hastily.

The controversial gay marriage ban—which cannot be finalized until after the November 2006 elections at the earliest—would prohibit same-sex couples to marry, but would allow for civil unions.

Isaacson, who sees marriage as a gateway to legal rights, said last month that civil unions are unacceptable to the gay community because they only provide for one-third of the rights that come with a state-sanctioned marriage license.

Along with Harvard, MIT is not planning to change its same-sex domestic partner benefits this May.

Meanwhile, Boston College and Boston University do not offer these benefits.

Babson College and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center plan to drop them by Dec. 31, requiring all same-sex couples to produce a marriage certificate in order to retain their current health plans.

—Materials from the Associated Press were used in the reporting of this story.

—Staff writer Claire Provost can be reached at jprovost@fas.harvard.edu.