They were the ones who had the legal opinion saying "you can't plausibly argue that extending a few basic benefits would be prohibited by Amendment 3," she said.

Actually, what the Yes! for Marriage lawyers said was that, "the Legislature (or other government) can extend any benefits it wants, as long as it doesn't do it on the basis of a sexual relationship."

But Anderson's push is apparently designed around the sexual relationship. Anderson, also an attorney, told the Deseret Morning News he only wants to extend benefits to nonmarried same-sex and gay couples, and not open up benefits "to the whole universe" — a group that would include other dependents, like siblings living together or an adult child and parent living under the same roof.

State Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Sandy, also an attorney, maintains Amendment 3 does prohibit Anderson from extending benefits only to couples.

And even if a court ever ruled the amendment didn't prohibit Anderson from doing so, Christensen says he would introduce legislation prohibiting Salt Lake City from offering those benefits.

"Under current law, I do not believe the mayor has authority," Christensen said. "It's not because I'm trying to turn a deaf ear or hard heart toward anyone. We've debated it and adopted it. . . . Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of society."

Christensen said it would be different if Anderson wanted to open benefits up to "the whole universe" and allow every employee to pick one person to receive benefits.

"As I understand it, Mayor Anderson wants equality, regardless of sexual orientation. He wants to create a spouse equivalent under insurance benefits."

But not every backer of Amendment 3 shares Christensen's opinion.

Bill Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation, a national group that supported Amendment 3 in Utah, said the city would "have to do something quite dramatic" before the benefits conflicted with the amendment.

"It's so clear that something has to be equivalent to marriage (to conflict with Amendment 3)," Duncan said. "These one or two things are not going to raise any Amendment 3 questions."

The city could, however, run into authority questions, and that would depend on whether state law defines who can be the beneficiary of public benefits, Duncan said.

While nothing currently in state code specifically states who cities can offer benefits to, the Legislature could create such restrictions, as Christensen has threatened, according to David Church, chief counsel for the Utah League of Cities and Towns.

The Legislature, after all, does have sweeping power over Utah's cities, he said.