The city knew a fight may have loomed in the 2006 Legislature this winter over Mayor Rocky Anderson's plan to provide insurance benefits to city employees' gay and unmarried partners.

But the mayor didn't count on what came Tuesday: After months of working with the city to refine the benefits plan, the city's insurance administrator backed down after a state lawmaker called domestic-partner benefits illegal.

The Public Employees Health Program (PEHP) - which also provides benefits to the state, Salt Lake County and dozens of other government bodies - wants a judge to declare domestic-partner benefits legal before moving forward.

Nevertheless, Anderson said he will sign his executive order today, making the capital the first Utah government to approve domestic-partner benefits. His order will require the city to amend its contract with PEHP to offer such benefits.

"We'll do whatever it takes to provide equal benefits," Anderson said Tuesday. "If it takes legal action, that's what we'll pursue."

PEHP had been working with the city, which is self-insured, on the benefits package for up to four months. PEHP actuaries even helped estimate the costs, which could run the city an extra $113,000 a year for health insurance.

"We felt like it was a contract issue, it was only a matter of amending our current contract," said Jodi Langford, the city's benefits administrator. "They felt the same way. They had no problem."

But on Tuesday, after news reports said Anderson was going to sign the executive order this week, PEHP's attorney called Langford.

According to her, the attorney said, "Based on articles from the paper, we have received pressures from individuals so we just think it's in our best interest to seek this [court] opinion."

Jeffrey Jensen, PEHP's deputy director, said he knew of no direct pressure, but said the nonprofit Utah company was aware of concerns raised by Rep. LaVar Christensen. The Draper Republican maintains that domestic partner benefits are illegal.

"We were OK until recently," Jensen said. "When Representative Christensen came out about certain interpretations of certain laws and how that might be construed, that caused us to pause. . . . Ultimately, the courts are the ones who determine what's legal."

Jensen didn't know if PEHP or the city would seek a declaratory judgment from a judge.

Christensen said Utah law - which says the 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" - makes domestic-partner benefits illegal.

"The current law is so clear and sufficient it's flagrant for him to violate known public policy," Christensen said.

The Republican lawmaker said he contacted PEHP "a long time ago" to get a copy of its policy.

He said he didn't pressure the insurer.

"Anyone can read the statute. If you have a bias to advance the same-sex-couple agenda, you might not look at this objectively."

Salt Lake City's attorneys believe Anderson's plan is legal. So do Salt Lake County attorneys, who analyzed the law when County Councilwoman Jenny Wilson unsuccessfully tried to provide domestic-partner benefits.

But county Republicans cited the recently approved Amendment 3 - a constitutional provision that reinforces the state law in promoting traditional marriage - in voting against Wilson's plan in July.

Scott McCoy, an openly gay state senator, said a court decision on Salt Lake City's plan would be helpful.

"This will clarify once and for all . . . that there isn't a legal roadblock to offering these benefits. This is just one more hurdle that the opponents of fairness and equality will try to throw up as a roadblock, but ultimately I think the policy will prevail."

McCoy also is prepared to defend domestic-partner benefits in the Legislature because Christensen has said he would consider seeking legislation making such benefits illegal if he had to.

"The opposition is anti-gay," McCoy said.

"They are just so afraid of what they perceive to be opening the door to any kind of recognition or benefit to gay and lesbian couples."

Christensen said he is not anti-gay. "I love people. My heart goes out to anyone that aches and hurts. There are certain things that have stood the test of time that are unalterable. To try to set aside those founding principles that are morally and religiously based is what's contributing to some of the confusion and, in some instances, the contention that's coming from the other side."

hmay@sltrib.com