"Cities' powers are derived from legislation, so the state Legislature can enlarge at their will what cities can and can't do," Church said.

In opposing Amendment 3 last year, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff predicted legal wrangling over what he called an unclear law. Even the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel foresaw that courts and judges would have to determine what the amendment really meant. The office's legal analysis read, "the scope of that prohibition (on marriage equivalents) may be more precisely defined by Utah courts as they interpret the provision in the context of lawsuits that may arise."

But Christensen's statement that he will push for new laws "if somehow (Amendment 3) wasn't sufficiently clear" to thwart Anderson may make the legal wrangling a moot point. Three-fourths of the state lawmakers are Republicans. On top of that, many conservative lawmakers dislike Anderson.

Give Given that, few, if any, think legislation stopping Anderson's benefit plan wouldn't pass by a healthy margin.

---

E-mail: bsnyder@desnews.com