However, benefits that a government or a business offers to its employees, including those extended to partners of employees, should not be affected by their marital status. Couples in committed relationships who are unmarried should be entitled to the same employer-provided benefits as those who decide to sign a marriage contract.

We commend Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson's decision to extend health benefits to the domestic partners of city employees. It rightly recognizes that gay couples, who are not allowed to marry, and heterosexuals who decide for any reason not to marry should not be denied the same benefits extended to married people.

But the mayor's executive order granting those rights could conflict with Part 2 of Amendment 3, the anti-gay-marriage amendment overwhelmingly approved by Utah voters last year. Rep. LaVar Christensen has reiterated his belief that domestic-partner benefits are illegal, and the city's insurance provider has backed off rewording the company's contract with the city.

Anderson's order, the first government directive recognizing domestic-partner rights in Utah, could provide a much-needed test of the constitutionality of domestic-partner benefits under the amendment. We believe Salt Lake City, or the city's insurance administrator, should ask for a court ruling - the sooner, the better - to remove the confusion that has kept domestic-partnership issues in limbo since Amendment 3 was passed.

Crafters of Part 2, which prohibits recognizing a domestic union other than marriage between one man and one woman or giving it "equivalent legal effect," denied that it would stand in the way of governments or businesses providing benefits to unmarried couples.

Nevertheless, it has had precisely that effect. Republican members of the Salt Lake County Council cited Part 2 to support their decision not to extend benefits equally to all county workers, and Utah State University attorneys expressed similar qualms about a proposal for university employees.

Anderson's bold move should help resolve the long-running dispute over just what Amendment 3 means and whether it can, despite what voters were promised, derail what would be a compassionate and sound city policy. It will be up to a judge to decide.