And in laying out that argument in a lawsuit filed Tuesday, the Public Employees Health Program (PEHP) was careful to remain ambiguous in what it thinks about the legalities of Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson's executive order.

That was on purpose, acknowledged PEHP attorney Dan Andersen. "Our purpose is simply to find out what the law is and follow it. There are valid interpretations either way."

PEHP asked 3rd District Judge Stephen L. Roth to quickly rule on its petition for declaratory judgment, since Anderson wants to offer health and dental insurance benefits to unmarried employees' partners - heterosexual or gay - by Nov. 1. PEHP administers the city's insurance program and the city is blocked from offering the benefits until a judge rules, according to City Attorney Ed Rutan.

At issue is whether the state's Marriage Recognition Policy - which says marriage is only between a man and a woman - and the constitutional amendment called Amendment 3 - which also bans same-sex marriage - prohibits the city's plan.

Rep. LaVar Christensen, a lawyer by trade, believes the law is clear, and that the city's plan is illegal. He has said, in previous interviews, that he may intervene in the PEHP matter to represent his point of view. He couldn't be reached Tuesday.

Jane Marquardt, chairwoman of the gay-rights group Equality Utah, anticipates gay advocates will intervene as well to argue the benefits are valid.

The Utah chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is investigating whether it has a role in defending domestic-partner benefits.

In fact, the ACLU in Michigan won a similar case Tuesday when a judge there ruled the state's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage doesn't prevent the state from offering health benefits to same-sex partners of state employees, according to The Associated Press.

"We definitely think [Utah's] Amendment 3 should not get in the way of domestic-partner benefits," said local ACLU executive director Dani Eyer.

Here's what Judge Roth will have to ferret out, according to the PEHP suit:

l Is the mayor's executive order a law or a contract negotiation? If it's a contract negotiation between the city and its employees, the state's Marriage Recognition Policy would protect such an executive order, PEHP says. If it's a law, the executive order would be impermissible.

l Is offering domestic- partner benefits akin to granting legal status to gay couples that is equivalent to marriage? If so, the executive order is illegal. If not, it's OK.

PEHP argues both sides on this question. It notes that marriage confers more than 1,000 automatic federal and state protections, benefits and responsibilities. "The extension of a single health insurance benefit that is traditionally granted to lawful spouses does not seem to be . . . the same as marriage," PEHP notes.

But then PEHP says extending health benefits has historically been tied to marriage. "As such, the extension of benefits to a domestic partner is . . . like a marriage."

Meantime, three council members - Dave Buhler, Eric Jergensen and Jill Remington Love - met Tuesday to discuss a broader benefits package that would provide insurance to employees' domestic partners - along with other people they live with, such as siblings, parents or friends.

"We're still trying to define what that package means. Stay tuned," said Jergensen, who said an ordinance could be ready for council review in November.

Such an ordinance, if passed, would supercede Anderson's executive order.

The mayor opposes the council plan. But some of his supporters are intrigued.

"If a broader approach would cover gay employees, that would be a good way to handle it. Our fear is that a broader approach would be so broad that it won't really happen," said Marquardt.

hmay@sltrib.com