Domestic-partner legal tangle grows

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.

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.