
The House of Representatives could not muster the two-thirds majority needed to put a constitutional amendment banning benefits for same-sex partners of public employees on the ballot today. (Jason Kohler/KTUU-TV)
Rep. John Coghill, R-North Pole, the chief sponsor of the amendment, said he has not given up on the issue. (Jason Kohler/KTUU-TV)
Rep. David Guttenberg, D-Fairbanks, criticized the amendment. (Jason Kohler/KTUU-TV)by Bill McAllister
Monday, May 7, 2007
JUNEAU, Alaska -- The House of Representatives could not muster the two-thirds majority needed to put a constitutional amendment banning benefits for same-sex partners of public employees on the ballot today.
The house voted 22-to-14 in favor of the same-sex amendment, falling five votes short of the number needed to pass the resolution to the Senate.
Debate centered on whether the amendment constitutes discrimination.
Rep. David Guttenberg, D-Fairbanks, criticized the amendment.
"This nation has been moving forward, and it has taken us hundreds of years to knock down barriers to others. And here we are on the verge of trying to put up another barrier in front of people," Guttenberg said.
Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Fairbanks, was in favor of the amendment.
"Some folks have tried to structure the debate around well, homosexual couples would be disallowed employment benefits. They receive now the same exact employment benefits as any other unmarried people," Kelly said.
Rep. John Coghill, R-North Pole, the chief sponsor of the amendment, said he has not given up on the issue.
Last month, a majority of voters said they wanted to see a constitutional amendment next year to ban health benefits for same-sex partners of public employees.
Contact Bill McAllister at bmcallister@ktuu.com