Domestic-partner legal tangle grows

Dianna Goodliffe was in court watching the proceedings. Goodliffe and her live-in lesbian girlfriend hope Anderson's plan is legally kosher. If it is, Goodliffe's partner would have the option of quitting her job to become a stay-at-home mom for the couple's daughter, who was recently diagnosed with diabetes.

"This is about what my employer wants to offer us as employees," said Goodliffe, who along with the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah has filed an amicus brief in the case.

While Goodliffe, who works as a victim advocate for the city's police department, looked on, defense fund attorney Dale Schowengerdt said Anderson's order was illegal because it violated the council's ability to set policy and also violated state law by giving non-married couples benefits traditionally reserved for man and wife.

City Attorney Ed Rutan countered that Anderson's order was legal given the mayor's ability to interpret council policy and added that extending benefits to unmarried couples — be they gay or straight — did not give those relationships status reserved for husband and wife.

When those legal arguments ended, another complication arose. A representative for the employees health plan said the City Council's alternative won't solve the state retirement board's legal issues concerning domestic partnership benefits.

David Hansen, representing the health plan and the state retirement board, informed Roth that even the council's alternative proposal would be legally problematic. Hansen, therefore, encouraged Roth to rule on the issue so the health plan would have some direction on how to proceed.

"We see no legal distinction between the council's proposed plan and the mayor's executive order," Hansen said.

Roth said he couldn't rule on the council's action because it was not before him and hadn't even been passed yet. He said he would offer a ruling on the legal issues surrounding Anderson's order at a later date.

---

E-mail: bsnyder@desnews.com