Source: Associated Press via Twin Falls Times-News, 2news.tv (Boise), Moscow-Pullman Daily News via blog
MOSCOW, Idaho -- Six Republican state legislators have asked the Idaho attorney general's office to examine the legality of this northern Idaho city's decision to extend health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of city employees, citing its possible incompatibility with the state's marriage amendment.

The lawmakers said the resolution the City Council approved on Monday conflicts with the state's marriage amendment, passed in 2006, which says "a marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."

"We were surprised to see the (city's) decision regarding the health insurance policy," Sen. Russ Fulcher, R-Meridian, told the Moscow-Pullman Daily News. "It appears it would conflict with the marriage amendment, or at least the spirit of it."

Fulcher submitted the request to the attorney general's office on Friday on behalf of Sens. Curt McKenzie, R-Boise, and Michael Jorgenson, R-Hayden Lake, and state Reps. Curtis Bowers, R-Caldwell, Phil Hart, R-Athol, and Steven Thayn, R-Emmett.

Regence Blue Shield of Idaho, the city's insurance company, recently began offering a plan that covers same- and opposite-sex domestic partners.

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.

The benefits take effect early next year, and the council has the option to review the plan by January 2009.

Fulcher said the city resolution and the marriage amendment have an "intuitive conflict."

But Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney said there is no conflict between the two.
"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.

Last week, a Boise-based conservative Christian group blasted the Moscow vote and sent a letter to state lawmakers asking them to request the review.

"The ink is barely dry on this marriage amendment and here you have a municipality thumbing its nose at the chief legal document of the state," said Bryan Fischer, executive director of Idaho Values Alliance.

"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."

Kriss Bivens Cloyd, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office, told the Associated Press that an analysis of the city's resolution will require time, and did not say when an opinion might be made.

And she said it will be only an opinion, and the city "can take that into consideration, or they can choose to ignore it."

Like state lawmakers, Fife said he would also review any opinion offered by the attorney general's office.

Full articles: Times-News: Magicvalley.com, Twin Falls, ID
Conservative Group Blasts Moscow City Council On Domestic Partnership | KBCI CBS 2
Domestic-partner decision draws fire | Area Man *ON* City Council