On Thursday, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) - which is involved in a separate suit in Utah over child-visitation rights for gay couples - asked Utah's 3rd District Court to declare Anderson's executive order illegal and prevent the city from providing insurance benefits to employees' domestic partners.

ADF attorney Chris Stovall said Anderson flagrantly violated Utah's law and constitutional amendment, both of which define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The suit says the city is establishing an "imitation marriage" by providing benefits to domestic partners and by defining domestic partners in city policy.

"It's very clear in the press and his statements regarding the reason he signed the executive order [that Anderson] believes same-sex couples should have a right to marriage," Stovall said in an interview. "This is one way he can attempt to promote that viewpoint."

He said traditional marriage deserves protection for the benefits it provides to society and children.

This is the second suit over Anderson's executive order, but it's much different in tone than the one filed by the Utah Public Employees Health Program - an independent state agency that administers the city's insurance program. PEHP filed a suit, also in 3rd District Court, earlier this week saying state law is unclear on whether domestic-partner benefits are legal.

Anderson had hoped the benefits would kick in Nov. 1, but now must wait for the court to rule.

The two cases have been assigned to different judges and could be consolidated into one.

Anderson hadn't seen a copy of the ADF lawsuit, filed Thursday, but said his domestic-partner benefits isn't about imitating marriage. The mayor does support same-sex marriage.

The executive order is a "way of providing equal benefits to people regardless of sex orientation or marital status," he said.

And Anderson disputed that ADF should be called Christian. "I don't see much Christian about discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation. I don't think they should smear Christianity by the use of that name."

ADF and Midvale-based attorney Frank Mylar are representing three Salt Lake City residents - Carol Nabrotzky and George and Laurie Norman - who say they will be harmed if the executive order is implemented.

The suit argues taxpayer money will be used for the benefits, though Anderson disputes that.

Stovall noted how Anderson and the City Council have different ideas on the benefits plan.

Some council members are exploring a broader plan that would grant benefits to employees' domestic partners along with others with whom they live. Stovall said the council approach may be legal.

"It's possible that a policy like that could be drafted in a way consistent with state law," Stovall said.

In its suit, ADF is repeating similar arguments made by Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, who also believes the executive order is illegal. Christensen couldn't be reached Thursday, and Stovall said he didn't know if Christensen contacted ADF about the issue, though Stovall said state politicians may have alerted the office.

Christensen was present when Mylar argued a case in front of the Utah Supreme Court last summer regarding Cheryl Pike Barlow, a former lesbian who doesn't want her former partner to have visitation rights with Barlow's daughter.

ADF sees one of its primary goals as defending Defense of Marriage Acts throughout the country, along with litigating against abortion and for religious freedom.

Scott McCoy, a gay state senator and Salt Lake City attorney who supports Anderson's executive order, predicted the ADF suit would be dismissed. "Moral outrage is not actionable," he said.

And he called the ADF a usual suspect in bringing this case. "It's one of those generally surly, right-wing groups."

hmay@sltrib.com