This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2005, and information in the article may be outdated.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.
Ten gay advocates stood behind Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson at City Hall on Wednesday to watch history in the making - as well as the makings of a lawsuit - as he signed an executive order extending health benefits to employees' gay and unmarried-heterosexual partners.
With a '' 'K, it's done,'' Anderson signed the capital city up to become the state's first government offering domestic-partner benefits.
Moments later, a grinning Evelyn Garlington said that act took courage.
"It's a momentous day in Salt Lake City," said the board president of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center of Utah. "The only thing that's going to dissolve the hatred, that fierce hatred, is equally fierce love, and that is what I saw here today."
Anderson said he believes the executive order will boost business in the city because it is another sign that the capital is progressive. He also said the order provides "equality of benefits, equal respect, equal dignity in the workplace for all Salt Lake City employees without respect to marital status and without respect to sexual orientation."
But it will take a court order before employees can sign up their unmarried partners for medical, dental and other insurance benefits.
A 3rd District judge could be asked as soon as Friday to rule on whether domestic-partner benefits are legal under state law and Amendment 3, the voter-approved constitutional provision regarding traditional marriage.
The Utah Public Employees Health Program (PEHP) - an independent state agency that administers the city's insurance program - will seek a declaratory judgment and ask the judge to expedite a ruling. The city could go to court on its own.
"Philosophically, politically, morally, we are not one way on this thing," said Dan Andersen, PEHP's legal counsel. "The last thing we can do is violate the law when we're on notice that it might be illegal to do something."
That notice came in part from Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, an attorney who believes Anderson's plan is illegal based on the state's "Marriage Recognition" law [see accompanying graphic]. He may try to intervene in the PEHP lawsuit, he said.
The mayor is "trying to create his own marriage and divorce laws within the city limits," Christensen said, pointing to how the health-benefits plan requires domestic partners to sign a statement affirming they have lived together for six months.
"Just because you're mayor doesn't mean you can pick up your pen and ignore state law," the lawmaker said.
Ironically, PEHP also believes domestic-partner benefits may be illegal because of statements made by gay-rights advocates.
In trying to defeat Amendment 3, Jackie Biskupski - an openly gay lawmaker who stood behind Anderson as he signed the executive order - wrote in a 2004 voter pamphlet that the amendment would deny same-sex couples health-insurance benefits. In another twist, Amendment 3 proponents denied that would happen.
Biskupski said Wednesday that she welcomes a court ruling. "We all need to know what the amendment really did."
PEHP planned to amend its contract with the city to offer domestic-partner benefits, until it read the Amendment 3 literature and heard from Christensen.
But the city didn't know until Tuesday that PEHP was backing down. PEHP attorney Andersen blames miscommunication - he thought he notified the city of the agency's concern weeks ago. But City Attorney Ed Rutan said he feels PEHP "pulled the rug out from under us."
"The city has every right to be angry with the timing and the surprise they got from us," acknowledged Linn Baker, director of PEHP.
The mayor, also an attorney, said there is "absolutely no question" the benefits are legal, and he hopes other cities will follow his lead. "This doesn't undermine the institution of marriage one bit."
Said Rutan: "We're dealing with the employer-employee relationship - not an attempt to create something that is the equivalent of marriage."
Far from feeling battle-weary - this domestic-benefits fight follows Anderson's protest of the U.S. president and an ugly public spat after he fired his communications director - the mayor said he is "invigorated by carrying on the good fight when I feel that we're doing the right thing and, absolutely, this is the right thing to do."
He even wishes he would have offered the benefits sooner. He talked about it years ago, but nothing happened until Salt Lake County debated, and then defeated, a similar proposal in July.
His executive order may have little practical effect. While supporters and opponents of the plan may be easy to find, employees who might use the plan aren't - partly out of fear of how they will be treated. The city estimates less than 30 of 2,600 employees could enroll.
Four employees anonymously wrote their thoughts about the executive order and delivered them to the GLTB Community Center. One gay employee said he or she doesn't plan to enroll his or her partner, but thanked the mayor for "giving all employees the tools to take care [of] their loved ones." Another complained the city's benefits are deteriorating, and money shouldn't be spread any thinner.
Anderson said the city won't be subsidizing domestic partners' insurance because the premiums employees will pay are expected to cover the cost of claims. But information provided by the city predicted that in some years the city will subsidize the costs.
Nevertheless, gay couples who have domestic-partner benefits through private employers say the coverage helps them financially and symbolically.
"It's very affirming in your everyday life," said Tami Marquardt, noting she is reminded of the coverage she receives through her partner's employer when she goes to the doctor, dentist, pharmacist. She attended Wednesday's signing with partner Jane Marquardt.
Watching Anderson sign the executive order, "I was proud to be a resident of Salt Lake City," Jane Marquardt said. "It's like being an important part of history."
Legal background
Here is the state law Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, refers to when he says domestic-partner benefits are illegal:
30-1-4.1. Marriage recognition policy.
(1) (a) It is the policy of this state to recognize as marriage only the legal union of a man and a woman as provided in this chapter.
(b) Except for the relationship of marriage between a man and a woman recognized pursuant to this chapter, 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.
(2) Nothing in Subsection (1) impairs any contract or other rights, benefits, or duties that are enforceable independently of this section.
Here is the text of Amendment 3, a constitutional provision approved by voters last year that amends Article I, Section 29 of Utah Constitution:
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.