COEUR d'ALENE - While the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act does not directly impact a local city councilman's efforts to provide benefits to domestic partners, it could in the future.

Coeur d'Alene City Councilman Dan Gookin has been working with the city's Human Resource Department for the past couple of months to determine if the city could begin offering benefits to domestic partners who have lived together for several years, but never married.

"We don't have any same sex couples that I am aware of yet," Gookin said Wednesday. "What I am doing deals with domestic partners, who for whatever reason may have so many entanglements in their lives they cannot get married.

"The only difference between them and a married couple is a piece of paper."

He said the process has so far focused on the cost of providing the benefits under the new Obamacare system and figuring out a system for eligibility, but Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling may have added a new twist to that process, he said.

In 2006, the Idaho Legislature passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. In doing so, the legislature explained its intent, saying:

"The language is further intended to prohibit the State of Idaho, or any of its political subdivisions, from granting any or all of the legal benefits of marriage to civil unions, domestic partnerships, or any other relationship that attempts to approximate marriage."

Gookin said he asked the city's legal staff to research that clause and they found that the city of Moscow does, in fact, offer benefits to domestic partnerships despite the language of intent.

"Apparently, they asked the Idaho Attorney General for an opinion on the issue, and the AG said it was a violation of Article 3, section 28 of the Idaho Constitution," Gookin said. "But Moscow's attorney disagreed with that."

Moscow went ahead and implemented the benefits program anyway, Gookin said.

"I think it's awesome that their attorney stood up for this," he said. "Our rights tend to step on each other all of the time - it's fascinating - but in the end you have to do what is right."

Legal scholars have been analyzing the DOMA decision since it came out, and many say that even though the court had a chance to rule on state prohibitions against certain types of marriage, some of the language used in the ruling could open the door to a slew of legal challenges.

"We are facing an interesting future for sure," Jason Gillmer, a Gonzaga law professor, said Wednesday. "The cases that will be brought will rely on the language of this decision."

Gillmer said that while the court struck down California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages, it stopped short of striking down similar state prohibitions.

"The court had the opportunity to strike these down, but opted not to," he said. "The door has been opened, however, and we will likely see more challenges in the states that have them."

Gookin said at this point he is not going ahead with his original plan to request a formal proposal from staff to create a benefit program for domestic partners, but he isn't dropping it either.

"It's a big maybe for us right now," he said. "I don't want to push something on staff without making them fully aware of the issues. I want to provide them with as much information as possible on this."

Gookin said he will be in contact with the City of Moscow's attorney and do a little more research on the issue before moving forward.

"As this draws nigh in about August, I should have more information on how to proceed," he said.