The Michigan Education Association announced its opposition to Michigan's gay marriage constitutional amendment on Wednesday because of negative effects it would have on the bargaining rights of public employees.

The state constitutional amendment, known as Proposal 2, would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman and forbid the state to recognize other unions. The proposal could ban domestic partner benefits offered by public employers, including MSU and other public schools because they recognize domestic partnerships.

"We (already) have a very strong state statute that says a union can only be between a man and a women," said Al Short, the association's director of governmental affairs. "They went one step further and affected the collective bargaining process between an employer and an employer group."

The MEA represents more than 160,000 public school employees statewide, including faculty and staff at public universities such as MSU.

In 1996, the Michigan Legislature passed a statutory ban on gay marriage and a definition of marriage as between man and women.

The actual language of the new amendment does not discuss benefits, but says, "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

Val Meyers, an MSU employee and president of MSU's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Student Association, said she is pleased the association has taken a stance.

"It's trying to keep any public employer from recognizing any relationship other than heterosexual marriage," Meyers said. "We do have faculty and staff that are using especially the health benefits for their partner and their children."

Meyers said between 30 and 35 employees are using the benefits.

"It's treating the partners of LBGT employees the same way they treat the spouse of heterosexual employees," Meyers said.

The group responsible for the amendment, Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, said restricting benefits was not its intention.

"We feel that marriage between a man and a woman is the best thing for society," group Chairwoman Marlene Elwell said. "The benefits can be given to anybody - but not as a married couple."