Judge Stephen Roth heard two hours of arguments Thursday on whether Mayor Rocky Anderson's executive order offering health insurance to employees' gay and unmarried partners is legal. He did not indicate when he might rule.

The mayor signed the order in September, and an Arizona-based Christian group promptly sued, alleging Anderson violated state law and a state constitutional amendment. The Alliance Defense Fund believes the order undermines traditional marriage.

Roth's ruling could provide the first legal interpretation of Amendment 3 since Utah voters approved the 2004 constitutional provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The amendment also forbids domestic unions from being recognized as marriage.

City Attorney Ed Rutan argued the mayor's order does not create a marriage-like status. The city didn't define domestic partners as a "spouse."

But, said Frank Mylar, a Midvale-based attorney working with the Alliance Defense Fund, the decision could determine "to what degree marriage is going to be protected - whether it deserves a special status, special rights and benefits or whether it's going to be thrown into a basket of all other kinds of relationships."

The American Civil Liberties Union's Utah chapter supports Anderson's order, and attorney Margaret Plane - who attended the hearing but didn't participate - said the ruling will affect whether other government agencies offer domestic-partner benefits.

To gain city benefits, partners must live together, have common financial obligations, not be related by blood and be in a "long-term committed relationship of mutual caring and support," according to the executive order.

"That's obviously mimicking marriage," Dale Schowengerdt, spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund, told the court. "That's his [the mayor's] angle . . . equate spouses with domestic partners."

Anderson does support gay marriage, but Rutan told the judge that the executive order is meant to treat employees fairly, regardless of marital status or sexual orientation, and to keep the city competitive in the job market.

And he said Amendment 3 was designed to prevent other unions from attaining the "entire basket of rights" available to married couples. "It's not addressed to an isolated program like an employee [health] benefits program."

Roth focused most of his questions on whether Anderson has the authority to create domestic-partner benefits. Schowengerdt said that's a decision for the City Council. Rutan, who said Schowengerdt has painted a false picture of the mayor "running amok," maintained that Anderson does have the authority.

The council isn't arguing that Anderson was out of line.

"As far as I'm concerned, [the mayor] had the right to do it the way he did it," said Council Chairman Dave Buhler, who nevertheless disagrees with the mayor's executive order. The council is creating its own benefits plan that, if passed, would supercede Anderson's order.

Sixteen city employees have applied for partner benefits but have yet to receive them, pending Roth's ruling.

One of those workers is Dianna Goodliffe, a victim advocate in the Police Department, who attended the hearing. Her partner has health insurance through her job, but may want to stay home to care for the couple's diabetic daughter.

The mayor's order "allows us to make decisions about our welfare," said Goodliffe, who is being represented by the ACLU in a friend-of-the-court brief.

"It does add a level of equality. It certainly doesn't equate to marriage."

hmay@sltrib.com