Source: Idaho Statesman and Spokesman Review
BOISE, Idaho -- The state attorney general's office has issued a nonbinding opinion that the decision by the Moscow City Council in north-central Idaho to extend domestic partner benefits to city employees violates the Idaho Constitution.
Sen. Russ Fulcher, R-Meridian, requested the opinion soon after Moscow approved extending the benefits in December.
"I would just like to see them follow what the voters of the state of Idaho said when they passed the marriage amendment," Fulcher told the Idaho Statesman.
A conservative group, Idaho Values Alliance, in December announced a campaign to lobby lawmakers to ask for the opinion.
Idaho attorney general says Moscow's partner benefits are unconstitutional [contd.]
"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 group that promotes right-wing issues and claims to have 1,300-members.
"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.
Idaho voters last year passed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships and civil unions.
Mayor Nancy Chaney has explained consistently since the council's vote that the benefits approved by the council don't change any definitions of Idaho law.
"The city of Moscow is neither defining nor creating domestic partnerships," she told the Spokesman Review in December. The language "domestic partner" is used by Regence Blue Shield of Idaho, the city's insurance carrier.
"I think to be competitive in the job market today, it's responsible business," she said, adding that it was also the "compassionate" thing to do.
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 employee's 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 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.
The Idaho attorney general agreed with the right-wing group, but the city is not required by the non-binding opinion to change its policy.
Full article: ID AG says Moscow's domestic partner benefits unconstitutional | Idaho | Idaho Statesman
Group challenges Moscow's domestic partner benefits | Spokesman Review