This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2005, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
On Wednesday, Rocky Anderson will make history.
At noon in City Hall, the Salt Lake City mayor will quietly sign an executive order to offer a handful of health benefits to gay and unmarried heterosexual partners of city employees.
While the city estimates that about 30 employees might sign up for the benefits, gay advocates are heralding the move as a landmark decision that honors diversity. On Monday, Anderson called it a "step toward equality. It's a step toward respect and equal dignity in the workplace."
It also places the capital in the history books for becoming the first government in Utah to offer domestic-partner benefits, following the failed attempt in Salt Lake County in July.
By signing an executive order, Anderson avoids the emotional debate that derailed the domestic-partner package in the county, where talk focused on gay marriage.
But the mayor will be seeking City Council approval to offer unmarried employees paid bereavement and dependent-care leave - two benefits he cannot give via executive order. A majority of council members contacted Monday aren't ruling out approving such an ordinance.
"I feel like he is making a decision that is in line with the way that families are in this country," said Valerie Larabee, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center of Utah. "It is a landmark decision in that Salt Lake City is at the heart of Utah, and one could only hope this model can be transported to other municipalities within this state without a lot of bigoted discussion."
Carrie Evans, state legislative director for the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign, said Salt Lake City is in line with the thousands of private companies that offer domestic partner benefits.
"It gives the opportunity to the rest of the state that is more conservative to see it in action, that Salt Lake isn't falling apart and people aren't fleeing the city because [gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual] citizens are treated with equality," Evans said.
But Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, told The Salt Lake Tribune in August that he believes offering such benefits is illegal. If it isn't, he said he would sponsor legislation in the 2006 Legislature making it so. He didn't return phone calls Monday.
City attorneys analyzed whether extending medical, dental and other benefits is legal and decided it is. In fact, the University of Utah already offers a similar program to employees.
While lawmakers have approved legislation aimed at curtailing Anderson's policies in the past, the mayor predicted the Legislature won't follow Christensen's lead and pass "discriminatory legislation. There would be enormous economic-development repercussions if such a law were passed."
Mike Picardi, chairman of the Utah Chapter of the Stonewall Democrats, which advocates for gay rights, expects Anderson's executive order to end up in court.
"It's going to get really ugly for the taxpayers of Utah because of Christensen's bigoted attitude," Picardi said. "He's so anti-gay . . . he doesn't even see how heterosexual partners living together will benefit from this. The state will wind up paying for it. The people who don't get these benefits are going to go on welfare."
Picardi would have liked to see the mayor seek council approval for the domestic-partner benefits - noting that a new mayor could rescind the benefits. But Anderson said council members can just as easily reverse decisions - which is why he signed an executive order in 2000 protecting gay employees from discrimination after one council approved a nondiscrimination ordinance and another dismantled it after an election.
Councilwoman Nancy Saxton supports offering domestic-partner benefits, but nevertheless wishes the council could have voted on it.
"It would have created a more optimistic or interested perspective from the public. With his exercising his ability to do an executive order, it takes that away. [The executive order] either catches on or it could be gone in two years," Saxton said.
Councilwoman Jill Remington Love said she would help the mayor seek council approval for the bereavement- and dependent-leave benefits. She had investigated whether she could initiate an ordinance extending the health and dental benefits, but learned it was the mayor's prerogative.
If the council has its way, it would discuss offering insurance benefits to more than gay and unmarried couples - to employees living with their parents, siblings, friends.
Anderson "brings up a good point. Right now we're excluding some employees from a benefit that other employees have," said Councilman Dave Buhler. "If we're going to take that tack, we should be more inclusive than exclusive."
Anderson said that would be too expensive; council members are seeking hard numbers. And the mayor describes that route as a "dodge. It would would be to avoid the question of equality among different kinds of partners."
Questions and answers
l What does the executive order do? Requires the city to amend contracts with insurance providers to include domestic partners and children of domestic partners under the definition of "eligible dependent."
l Who are domestic partners? They are same-sex or heterosexual partners who have a "long-term committed relationship of mutual caring and support." To apply for city benefits, couples must sign a "declaration of domestic partnership" that says they have lived together for at least six months, aren't legally married, are responsible for each others' welfare and common financial obligations, are at least 18, and are not related by blood to such a degree that would prohibit legal marriage.
l What insurance benefits are covered? Medical, dental, life, accidental death and dismemberment, long-term care, group-home and automobile insurance. The executive order will also allow domestic partners to use the city's group legal and employee-assistance programs.
l What benefits are not covered by the executive order? Benefits provided only to married partners by state and federal law, as well as the city's dependent leave and bereavement leave - which would give gay and unmarried employees paid time off to care for sick partners and attend their funerals. Under a union contract, some employees are now offered paid bereavement leave for their "live-in companions." Other gay and unmarried employees must use vacation time.
l How much will it cost? Between $38,000 and $113,000 for health insurance, according to city estimates. Insurance actuaries believe some of the cost will be covered by the premiums city employees will pay. Employees will pay between $1,657 and $2,211 a year - the same amount employees pay to cover their married spouses.