From Deseret News archives:

Domestic-partner legal tangle grows

S.L. City Council to propose own health benefits plan

Published: Friday, Jan. 6, 2006 9:28 a.m. MST
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
It appears that the legal fight over Mayor Rocky Anderson's domestic partners benefit plan will become moot even before a judge decides the case.

City Council Chairman Dave Buhler said Thursday that a substitute plan — a council ordinance that would trump Anderson's executive order — could be ready for City Council approval as early as next week.

That plan would open up health benefits to a more "inclusive" group of financial dependents, including siblings, roommates, gay and straight couples and others, Buhler said. The council ordinance is seen by some as less of an affront to the state's marriage protection laws than Anderson's domestic partner order.

"We may be ready to have this on our work session as early as Tuesday," Buhler said. He added that he doubted the council's plan would face the same legal challenges as Anderson's order, which the mayor conceded was designed in part as a human rights platform for unmarried gay and straight couples.

"I don't see any possible way" that the council's plan could run afoul of the state's Defense of Marriage Act or Amendment 3 — both of which define marriage as one man and woman, and may limit the benefits governments can extend to unmarried domestic partners, Buhler said.

Story continues below
Anderson has criticized the council's plan, saying some council members support it so they can "dodge" the gay rights issue.

"We know that we have council members who are anti-gay and lesbian," Anderson said last year.

Many conservative state lawmakers were aghast in September when Anderson signed his executive order extending health benefits to the unmarried domestic partners of city employees. Those gasps were heard by the state-run Public Employees Health Plan, which administers the city's health insurance. Health plan officials said they wouldn't administer Anderson's plan until a judge ruled whether the order violates state laws, including the Recognition of Marriage Act, which reads in part: "This state will not recognize, enforce or give legal effect to any law creating any legal status, rights, benefits or duties that are substantially equivalent to those provided under Utah law to a man and a woman because they are married."

Later, the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group from Arizona, filed suit on behalf of three city residents saying Anderson's move was illegal.

Third District Court Judge Stephen Roth combined all the legal matters and heard arguments from the defense fund and city attorneys Thursday.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

previousnext

Latest comments

No, students are NOT safe from predators. If a parent wants to make sure...

If you really think Mormon's are mainstream, you must not have paid attention...

I don't see the schools presidents voting to get rid of WYM or NM, even...

Big games keep UHSAA coffers full

why people complain about how football is covered by the media too much. when...

A little perspective is not a bad thing. Notice the Cougar's won loss record...

I actually was encouraged by some aspects of the game. Any Utah fan who has...

A story about Mormons as minorities? In this paper? Get over the "victim"...

she was an awesome woman someone i looked up to when i was younger she was...

Relieved Cougs prep for Falcons

Wow you just made one of the dumbest comments I've heard yet. Fire Bronco????...

Photos: A Royal welcome home

Re: Huh?, You like many other haters are probably oblivious to many obvious...

Advertisements
Advertisement