This apparently leaves untouched the various state constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and woman -- it passed in one of those charming referendums here in Alaska in 1998 -- but it will have implications here in Alaska nonetheless.
Those who think that Alaska is populated solely by ultra-right wing, evangelical rednecks might be surprised to learn that the State of Alaska already provides same-sex partner benefits for its employees. This came after a 2005 ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court that it was unconstitutional for the state to continue to deny state employees (and retirees) benefits for their domestic partners. Of course, The Lege tried to end run the Alaska Supreme Court on that with HB 4001, but Sarah Palin vetoed the bill on the advice of the Department of Law (not because she was supportive of gay rights or anything.) The whole "unconstitutional" thing pretty much trumped legislation by bigots.
Since then, state employees with same sex partners have been going about their lives, doing their jobs, and the earth has continued to orbit the sun, all with little impact on the marriages of heterosexual couples statewide. With health insurance for the same same sex partners of state employees. Taxable health insurance, mind you.
The SCOTUS ruling that the federal government can not deny federal benefits to same-sex couple will hopefully mean that health insurance benefits will no longer be considered "imputed income" and reported as untaxed income to the IRS. As noted on the State of Alaska webpage "Tax Implications for Enrolling Same-Sex Partners"
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has determined that the cost of providing benefits for same-sex partners and their children who do not meet the IRC Section 152 (as modified by IRC Code Section 105(b)) definition of qualified “dependents” is considered ordinary or “imputed income” and is, therefore, subject to taxes.The fair-market value for health insurance for a same-sex couple is $808 per month.
After the supreme disappointment (a ha ha) that was the ruling on the Voting Rights Act, it is great to see a positive outcome on this one.