Domestic-partner decision draws fire

Six state senators seek legal analysis from attorney general's office
By Tara Roberts, Daily News, Saturday, December 22, 2007

Six Idaho state senators have asked the Idaho Attorney General's Office to analyze the Moscow City Council's decision to extend insurance benefits to employees' domestic partners.

Sen. Russ Fulcher, R-Meridian, submitted the request Friday afternoon on behalf of Sen. Curt McKenzie, R-Boise, Michael Jorgenson, R-Hayden Lake, Curtis Bowers, R-Caldwell, Phil Hart, R-Athol, and Steven Thayne, R-Emmett.

"We were surprised to see the decision regarding the health insurance policy," Fulcher said. "It appears it would conflict with the marriage amendment, or at least the spirit of it."

Idaho's marriage amendment, passed in 2006, states, "A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."

The City Council passed a resolution Monday extending health insurance benefits from Regence Blue Shield of Idaho to employees' same- and opposite-sex domestic partners and their partners' dependents. Regence began offering the plan in November.

Domestic partners who want to sign up for the plan must file an affidavit with Regence certifying their partnership and meet a list of qualifying criteria, such as shared residence and financial responsibility.

Fulcher said there is an "intuitive conflict" between the benefit plan and the marriage amendment, which led to the legislators' decision to ask the attorney general's office for an analysis.

He said it is too early to speculate what the legislators will do when they get information back.

Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney said she does not believe the decision conflicts with the Idaho Constitution.

"This is a matter of extending to employees an insurance plan that is offered by our insurance provider," Chaney said. "The city is neither defining domestic partnerships nor creating them."

City Attorney Randy Fife said Regence originated the benefit plan, determines what is offered and decides who is eligible, so the plan does not require the city to "recognize" domestic partnerships in the sense of the marriage amendment.

Fife said the city did not change anything in its personnel policy to define or establish domestic partnerships. The city's definition of "immediate family" does not include domestic partners.

"To me, it is not related to whether or not there is a domestic partnership or a relationship that's prohibited by law," Fife said. "It has to do with whether or not the city has the capability of allowing an insurance benefit to be offered to its employees."

Fife said he would review any opinion from the attorney general's office and pass it on to the mayor and City Council to decide how to respond.

Attorney general's office spokeswoman Kriss Bivens Cloyd said the office can respond to legislators' requests with a legal analysis, but it is only an opinion. The legislators can tell the city of Moscow what the opinion is, but the city "can take that into consideration, or they can choose to ignore it."

Bivens Cloyd said an analysis requires much research, so it will be some time before any opinion is offered.

Idaho Values Alliance Executive Director Bryan Fischer on Friday sent a letter to Attorney General Lawrence Wasden in support of the legislators' request for analysis.

IVA began questioning the constitutionality of extending benefits to domestic partners before the City Council made its decision. IVA is the Idaho affiliate of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian nonprofit group.

"I think the city of Moscow must be stopped in its tracks," Fischer said. "If the city is allowed to get away with this, then the constitution of the state of Idaho is a meaningless document."

Fischer said Moscow leaders' arguments that offering the benefit plan doesn't conflict with the constitution are "gobbledygook."

"The city is offering benefits to people in domestic partnerships. That is flatly contrary to the Idaho state constitution," he said.

Chaney acknowledged the subject of domestic partnerships is very emotional for some people. She said the city is not attempting to redefine family, but to recognize that nontraditional families are common.

"The people who would benefit are existing employees, conceivably," she said. "They're people's friends, neighbors, relatives. I think there's this perception that the prospective beneficiaries are kind of scary or evil people, and in fact they're somebody's child."