ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) – The city of Anchorage is planning to offer benefits to same-sex partners of public employees to comply with a recent Alaska Supreme Court ruling – and advocates said the state would be wise to do the same.

“We’d hope the state would approach the set of issues that need to be resolved with the same good faith approach that the city seems to be pursuing,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, director of the Alaska chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. He was referring to court papers filed by the municipality in response to the October decision by the high court.

Gay rights advocates claimed a major victory when the court unanimously ruled that denying benefits to the gay and lesbian partners of public employees was unconstitutional. Alaska was one of the first states to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. That prohibition bars same-sex couples from receiving benefits enjoyed by their straight counterparts, the court said.

Supporters said the ruling could have a sweeping effect on other states because of its equal protection rationale. Gov. Frank Murkowski and other conservative Republicans quickly countered with vows to try to overturn it, starting with legislative approval for a constitutional amendment, which would have to be approved by voters.

The Supreme Court asked the city, state and the ACLU to offer suggestions on how to offer the benefits to same-sex couples. Until a remedy is reached, the disputed benefits plans stand.

Same-sex couples, through the ACLU, and the city have filed plans laying out their positions.

The state is asking for at least a year to deal with the Supreme Court decision. There are too many complexities to more promptly comply with the ruling, the state said in a 23-page response filed Jan. 5.

In its own response, the ACLU asked for a May 10 compliance to give state lawmakers or the administration a chance to provide benefits right after the legislative session ends.

The state said that deadline doesn’t take into account all steps in the lawmaking process, including a 90-day period before a new law goes into effect.

“The May 10 deadline could give the Legislature as little as a few days to consider and pass legislation that would take effect by the end of the session,” assistant attorney general Virginia Ragle wrote. Also, the deadline “does not take into account the time necessary for the executive branch” to revise and implement changes, she wrote.

Ragle could not immediately be reached.

The city of Anchorage proposed following guidelines used by Juneau to establish domestic partner eligibility, noting that Anchorage would limit benefits to same-sex couples. Juneau’s domestic partner benefits also apply to opposite-gender couples who meet certain criteria, said Juneau city attorney John Hartle.

The city wants 150 days to comply with any court-ordered remedy. But in a brief filed last month, Anchorage argued that some benefits for its employees are beyond its legal reach. For example, some workers receive health care and retirement benefits from their union trust funds. Some participate in the Alaska Public Employees’ Retirement System.

“Many of our employees are in the state retirement system and we can’t do anything about that,” said municipal attorney Fred Boness. “The trust funds are regulated by federal law. They were not sued by the plaintiffs and we can’t tell them what to do.”

Macleod-Ball said he doesn’t consider such issues as insurmountable challenges.

“None of this is rocket science,” he said. “I think there are a number of issues that need to be fixed, but none of them are so complicated that they can’t be resolved with some purpose and resolve.”

In their eight-page brief, the gay and lesbian couples are asking for a speedy remedy order, then a delay in any further court action until May 10 to give the state Legislature or administration a chance to make benefits available. In the meantime, they want “interim relief” for the gay and lesbian couples who initially sued.

The nine government workers and their partners in 2002 joined the Alaska ACLU in appealing a Superior Court ruling in a 1999 lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed against the state and the city of Anchorage after voters the previous year passed a constitutional amendment blocking state recognition of same-sex marriage.

The October ruling overturned the lower court’s decision that same-sex couples are in the same legal standing as unmarried heterosexual couples, who also aren’t eligible for benefits.

Gov. Murkowski, who at the time said he was “outraged” by the decision, could not be reached for comment, but his spokesperson, Mike Chambers, said the state is working on a response to the court order as well as a potential legislative rebuttal.

Murkowski and state Sen. Fred Dyson, R-Eagle River, have said they would like to give voters a chance to nullify the court’s decision by approving a constitutional amendment.