Next Tuesday, Alaska voters will have a choice. They can recommend the state constitution be amended to ban benefits for same-sex partners of state employees, or they can allow these employees to continue having the same benefits married couples enjoy.

The choice should be clear: voters should say "no" to amending the constitution to ban same-sex benefits.

The University of Alaska knows the value of these benefits more than any other institution in the state. It was the first to begin offering them. It was hesitant at first, and extended the benefits only after two gay employees convinced a court in 1995 they were entitled to them under state law. But today, UA says it would never dream of eliminating them. They are an important part of the university's compensation package, and constitute only about 1 percent of the $50 million in health plan expenses at UA.

The university is against any law that would force it to discontinue its benefit program.

"The university sees this benefit as important in remaining competitive in attracting new candidates and in retaining the excellent employees we already have," the statewide administration has said in a statement. "Maintaining this benefit is a modest investment considering the importance to the faculty and staff who utilize it."

But there is no guarantee that the university will be exempt from a constitutional amendment. A few backers of the amendment say UA would be, but they ignore the blunt language in the April 3 advisory vote ballot. It asks specifically if the Constitution should be amended to "prohibit the state, or a municipality, or other subdivision of the state, from providing employment benefits to same-sex partners of public employees."

That's bad policy for us.

Giving same-sex couples health benefits does not threaten "traditional marriage," as some have argued. After all, the Constitution already denies same-sex couples the ability to get married and defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Amending it now to ban benefits and other privileges to same-sex couples just further divides our society into groups. We're all Alaskans. We should not be creating laws that define some of us as "different."

And as the League of Women Voters has recently noted, the advisory vote turns the constitutional amendment process on its head. The Constitution clearly intends for amendments to begin with the Legislature, a deliberative body, before going to a vote of the people. But instead, the advisory vote asks citizens to voice an opinion on something that has not been fully debated.

If voters say "yes," the advisory vote would give backers of the amendment ammunition to force something through the Legislature. Debate would be reduced, which should cause us concern, especially when it's a law to amend our Constitution, the highest law in the state.

Taken together, there's simply no question about what the right choice is. On Tuesday, April 3, vote no on amending the Constitution.