Salt Lake. domestic-benefits order hits rare obstacle — no foes

Without any party actually opposing Salt Lake City's move to extend health-care benefits to partners of unmarried city employees, 3rd District Judge Stephen Roth says a ruling over whether the benefits order is legal or not can't happen by the end of the month.

City officials had wanted a court ruling by Nov. 1, the start of an open enrollment period for city employees to choose certain benefit plans.

"I'm interested in getting this resolved as quickly as I can," the judge said at a Thursday scheduling conference. "But I want to make sure it is adequately briefed and argued, and parties that have a reasonable interest can know about the schedule and make whatever motions to the court."

The hearing addressed a petition for "instruction/declaratory judgment" requested by the city's insurer about whether a plan to offer these types of benefits is legal or not.

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson in September signed an executive order providing benefits to domestic partners of city employees — including gay and lesbian partners, and unmarried heterosexual couples. Anderson believes this is a significant step in the interest of fairness.

Opponents of such measures argue that this violates state law and gives gay and unmarried couples the legal equivalent status of a traditional marriage. Opponents also contend this is contrary to the Utah State Constitution, which bars marriage between people of the same sex.

Another legal action, a civil lawsuit, also has been filed in 3rd District Court that does oppose Anderson's order. It was filed by three Salt Lake City residents and a conservative Arizona group, Alliance Defense Fund.

But Salt Lake City Attorney Ed Rutan said the city has not yet been served with legal papers in that case, so no action could be taken to consolidate the two legal proceedings. In addition, Rutan said the city plans to ask to have that suit dismissed on legal standing grounds.

In the case before Roth, the Public Employees Health Program (PEHP) that insures the city has simply asked for a clarification as to whether the proposed change in worker benefits is legal or not before implementing it.

PEHP has not taken a stand one way or another on the order but wants direction from the court before making changes. Meanwhile, the city clearly supports the revision in worker benefits.

David Hansen, attorney for PEHP, said his organization would be voicing the concerns it has in court, although it is not taking an opposing position.