Related articles:

Shelton pushes for domestic partner benefits Conservatives object to Napolitano's move to allow domestic partner benefits Law, not bias, should clarify state benefits

Other articles by Howard Fischer:

Governor drops builders from tax plan Redistricting advocates drop initiative Arizona abortion providers might increase Governor calls for boost of 1 cent in state sales taxState panel OKs new standards for greenhouse-gas emissions Coalition pushing tax for roads Theaters win round on accessLegislator wants eased rules on using teen labor Expert: Tougher pollution rules will cost more but are worth it Ruling sought that $40.6M is too little for ELL program

Trades/Construction
Paragon Electric
Electricians General
Chapel Haven West
Program Staff Dental
Dr. John Carson, DDS, PC
Dental Asst/Treatment Coordinator Health Care
Visiting Angels
Caregivers Driver/Transportation
Pioneer Landscaping
Drivers/End-Dumps Restaurants and Clubs
Zinburger
All Positions Sales and Marketing
Xentel
Business & Residential Callers

PHOENIX — An organization whose stated goals include "restoring traditional moral principles" to government policies is challenging the move by Gov. Janet Napolitano's administration to extend health care and other benefits to domestic partners of state and university employees.

In objections filed Monday with the state, the Center for Arizona Policy contends the proposal violates the state constitution and various statutes. Peter Gentala, the organization's legal counsel, said the question of who does — and does not — get benefits is solely reserved for the Legislature.

Gentala also said providing benefits runs afoul of what he said is "the state policy favoring marriage."

And he hinted that if the state adopts the policy, his organization may challenge it in court.

The move by Bill Bell, the governor's director of the Department of Administration, comes a year after voters narrowly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit government agencies from providing the same status as married couples to those who are not married. It would specifically have outlawed what is being proposed.

The proposed rule change would affect about 65,000 state and university workers, at an initial cost of up to $5.6 million a year for active employees and potentially another $306,000 for retirees who also would be eligible. Plans are to have it in place by Oct. 1.

Gubernatorial press aide Jeanine L'Ecuyer said the plan did not originate with Napolitano but instead with Bell. But the governor supports the move, she said.

"One of the things the Department of Administration has pointed out is that it helps to keep Arizona competitive in the job market," L'Ecuyer said.

Several communities, including Tucson, Scottsdale, Tempe, Phoenix and Pima County, already extend some benefits to domestic partners of state workers, as do a number of major private employers.

Current state rules generally limit benefits to a spouse or dependent child of an employee. The new rule adds domestic partners and their children to that list.

It specifically defines that category to be someone living with the employee for at least a year and expected to continue living with that person. There is no reference to the gender of the partner.

It also requires a showing of financial interdependence as shown by factors like a joint bank account, both being parties to a lease or naming the other person as a beneficiary on a will. And there must be an affidavit by the employee affirming that there is a domestic partnership.

Gentala said the Legislature gave the Department of Administration the power only to use tax dollars to provide benefits to dependents and spouses of state workers. "They weren't saying you can go out there and create a new legal status called domestic partner, which looks like marriage."

Gentala said that was done because the Legislature, which sets state policy, has determined that being legally wed is preferable to living together.

"The existing employment policy promotes marriage and is an incentive for employees to be married, have families," he explained. "It's recognizing those decisions and rewarding them with appropriate state benefits."

Gentala acknowledged lawmakers considered legislation in 1999 specifically to bar any governments from offering domestic partner benefits. But he said the failure to approve that measure is not proof that lawmakers wanted these decisions left to unelected state bureaucrats.

Public policy issues aside, Gentala said, the proposal is flawed because it is based solely on relationships and not on need.

For example, a worker cannot register someone as a domestic partner if that person is a relative whom he or she could not legally wed. Gentala said that bars a state employee from claiming a grandparent as a dependent, even if the worker is providing most of that person's finances.