Gay rights advocates may have to put the cork back in the champagne.

Today was supposed to be the day Mayor Rocky Anderson would make Salt Lake City Utah's first governmental body to offer health benefits to the unmarried partners — be they heterosexual or homosexual — of its employees.

But that euphoria was quelled a bit after the Public Employees Health Program (PEHP) — the state agency that administers benefits for Salt Lake City — raised legal concerns about Anderson's plan Tuesday.

PEHP officials now say they will file legal action as early as this week asking a court to determine whether Anderson's push is kosher under state law.

Until it gets that legal ruling — called a declaratory judgment — from a state court, PEHP Director Linn Baker said his organization won't administer those unmarried-partner benefits for Salt Lake City.

"We need to know what the law is," Baker told the Deseret Morning News on Tuesday.

Baker said "some state legislators that have already made public statements" against Anderson's plan contacted PEHP and raised the legal questions that prompted PEHP's nervousness.

Jodi Langford, Salt Lake City's employee benefits administrator, confirmed that PEHP backed off because "they have received pressure from individuals" in state government.

Undeterred, Anderson said he will go ahead and sign the executive order today — an announcement that brought cheers from gay rights advocates who have longed for access to benefits for unmarried partners.

In a perfect world, Baker said, by the time Salt Lake City offers employees a chance to sign up for the new benefits, PEHP will have its legal ruling.

Salt Lake City's next opening for employees to change their benefit plans is in November. That would be the first time employees would be able to add their unmarried partners onto their insurance. The city expects between 10 and 20 employees will take advantage, costing the city between $38,000 and $113,000. Baker said PEHP will file for a judgement as soon as possible to hopefully have it in hand by that time.

"You would hope that by the time the city wants this to be effective, we would have an order from the court," he said.

The city, which is self-insured but contracts with PEHP to administer its health-care claims, could end its tie with the state agency and find a new company in the private sector to work with.

But that move could be financially impossible. Currently, the non-profit PEHP costs the city about $600,000 to $800,000 annually. A similar contract with a private company would cost between $1.8 million and $5.2 million per year, Langford said.