An April 3 advisory vote will ask voters to consider whether or not same-sex domestic partners of state employees should receive benefits similar to those awarded to married couples.

"The question being posed to the people of Alaska is should the Alaska Legislature pass out a constitutional amendment dealing with benefits to same-sex couples," said Rep. John Coghill.

The vote stems from an Alaska Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that mandated the state give benefits to same-sex couples. The state constitution bans same-sex marriage. But the court ruled that under the constitution's equal protection clause, the state could not discriminate in providing benefits to employees with same-sex partners.

The bill for the advisory vote, which the Legislature drafted in November, asks the public to weigh in on the matter, Coghill said. The 56-year-old Republican disagrees with the court's decision because he feels the state's definition of marriage, the union of one man and one woman, means domestic partners of the same sex should not be allowed to receive the same benefits as married couples.

"In my opinion, it was a bad policy call by the Supreme Court," Coghill said.

The vote, set for this coming Tuesday, is an appeal to the public to ask whether or not the court ruling should be the law of the land, Coghill said.

The University of Alaska has provided benefits for same-sex partners since 1995, following a lawsuit in filed by two employees. Today, 116 employees with 175 dependents at UA receive the benefits.

Coghill said that under the proposed amendment, employers already offering benefits to same-sex couples would not be required to stop them. Instead, no one in the state would be required to offer them, he said.

"The advisory vote would have no affect on the benefits [already offered by the University of Alaska]," Coghill said.

But the language of the advisory vote indicates that it is likely to result in legislative action that gives voters the option to prevent the state from giving benefits to employees' same-sex partners.

The bill reads: "Shall the legislature adopt a proposed amendment to the state constitution to be considered by voters at the 2008 general election that would prohibit the state, or a municipality, or other subdivision of the state, from providing employment benefits to same-sex partners of public employees?"

According to Coghill, the amendment stemming from the vote would make it so employers didn't have to offer those benefits, but the wording is "prohibit," rather than "not require."

Rep. David Guttenberg, D-Fairbanks, said that either way the vote goes it is nothing more than an opinion poll giving the winners the political high ground.

"We've already defined marriage as one man and one woman, now what this is defining is who gets health benefits," said Guttenberg, 55. "We don't need an election to have that dialogue. We could spend $10,000 to $15,000 to get an in-depth poll."

According to Rep. Mike Doogan, D-Anchorage, the election will cost the state $1.2 million, while the pollster he spoke to estimated the cost of a scientific poll at about $12,000.

"It's just a terrific waste of money," Doogan said.

Doogan drafted a bill to change the funding for the election, requiring that it be funded by a specific appropriation rather than as part of the supplemental appropriations.

If his bill were to pass, he said the likely result would be that it would cancel the election. But it probably won't pass in time to have an effect on the election, he said.

According to Guttenberg, an opinion poll would be preferable to an election not only because of the financial side, but also because the results would be more likely to reflect true public opinion.

An election attempts to sway people, and would result in a lot of unnecessary hurt, he said. A poll would show more accurate feelings, he continued.

"It's a waste of everyone's time and money unless you want to flame the fires of bigotry," Guttenberg said.

Jake Hamburg, a 23-year-old gay political science major, pointed out the bill's potential ramifications at UAF.

"I really feel like I am getting an excellent education at UAF," Hamburg said. "I would hate to jeopardize my future education here because the university could not continue to be competitive in hiring high quality faculty and staff."

Hamburg reiterated the testimony UA Vice President James Johnsen gave in March 2006 to the Senate Finance Committee. Johnsen had noted the importance of giving employees' domestic partners benefits in addition to spouses to keep up with the national hiring market where he said those benefits are offered about 50 percent of the time.

"For 12 years, the University of Alaska has offered these benefits, in large part to stay competitive in hiring, and no harm has come from it," Hamburg said. "If this advisory vote were to pass, it would be taking away health benefits from those that already have them."

The Faculty Senate has passed a resolution against the advisory vote.

The Faculty Senate's resolution draws upon the state constitution, as well as the university's non-discrimination policies, as to to justify its position against the advisory vote.

"I oppose this bill because for myself, there is a great deal of comfort in knowing that in the future, when I graduate from college and begin my career, I will be entitled to equal pay for equal work and that my family, regardless of its makeup, will be okay," Hamburg said.