Group says benefits for domestic partners illegal

The city of Moscow’s decision to offer health insurance benefits to domestic partners of employees is drawing heat from the Idaho Values Alliance, which says the decision violates a 2006 voter-approved amendment to the state constitution defining marriage between a man and a woman as the only recognized domestic legal union in the state.

“I do think the bottom line is that we’re headed for a constitutional showdown,” said Bryan Fischer, executive director of the Idaho Values Alliance, a 1,300-member group dedicated to preserving traditional family values.

“What Moscow did was to say that co-habiting and same-sex partnerships are legally and morally equivalent to the marriage of one man and one woman, and that is very bad public policy,” he said.

Fischer’s group is lobbying state lawmakers to get a legal opinion from Attorney General Lawrence Wasden.

Mayor Nancy Chaney said the group is misconstruing Monday night’s 4-2 vote.

“The city of Moscow is neither defining nor creating domestic partnerships,” she said. The language “domestic partner” is used by Regence Blue Shield of Idaho, the city’s insurance carrier.

To qualify for the benefits, city employees would have to sign an affidavit, indicating that they and their unmarried partner meet the “domestic partnership” guidelines outlined by Regence Blue Shield, according to Chaney.

The City Council has discussed extending benefits to employees’ unmarried partners for about two years, she said. However, Regence Blue Shield of Idaho only began offering that option in November. In 2005, the Spokane City Council granted benefits to domestic partners of employees.

“We’re proud of diversity,” said Chaney. Randy Fife, the city’s attorney, argues that nothing in the resolution supersedes Idaho law.

“The constitution is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said. “State and local political subdivisions are prohibited from recognizing domestic unions.”

The resolution only affects health benefits, Fife added. The definition of “immediate family” in the city’s personnel policy remains unchanged, and does not include unmarried partners, he said.

Jack Van Valkenburgh, executive director of ACLU of Idaho, agreed with Fife’s assessment.

“Moscow has chosen to provide health insurance to partners of employees regardless of sexual orientation,” he said. “I would reject the claim that this is trying to codify gay marriage.”

Tom Lamar, a council member who voted for the resolution, said having more people covered under health insurance plans is a positive step for the entire community.

“We have a non-discrimination policy and we need to make sure that our employee benefit package matches that,” Lamar said. “I’m married and I live in Idaho and I don’t feel threatened by this. … People need to be more confident in their own marriages.”

But the Idaho Values Alliance’s Fischer contends the marriage amendment was passed to prevent actions like Moscow’s resolution.

While private companies can offer whatever benefits they choose, state and local governments are prohibited from treating same-sex and cohabiting partners like married couples for benefit purposes, Fischer said.

“If Moscow gets away with this, the constitution will become essentially meaningless,” he said. “We’ll have one municipality and government entity after another doing the same thing that Moscow did.”