About a dozen students from MSU and the University of Michigan met in the Union Sunday for a student summit aimed at defeating the Michigan Marriage Amendment.

Visitors from the Coalition for a Fair Michigan, the Triangle Foundation, Michigan Equality, the Ypsilanti Campaign for Equality and the Stonewall Democrats spoke to students about advocating against voting for the amendment.

"This is the first statewide campaign that's ever happened in the state of Michigan that has to do with LBGT issues," said Ethan Roeder, field director for Coalition for a Fair Michigan.

"It's an experiment. We're all sort of discovering how to create a statewide presence, a statewide unity."

The amendment, which will appear on the Nov. 2 ballot, would describe marriage as a union between a man and a woman and would invalidate partnerships other than marriage.

The students were encouraged to pretend to be citizens in favor of or confused about the ballot so others could practice swaying their vote.

"I wasn't really clear about the language and what it would do," U-M Spanish and molecular biology senior and co-chairwoman for Stonewall Democrats Andrea Knittel said. "It helped me figure out what I want to say to people."

Roeder told the group that college students are the biggest support for the initiative.

"You never really know how people are going to react," Roeder said to the students. "It's sort of open season for discrimination."

Thirteen of Michigan's 15 public higher education institutions are working at some level with the coalition, said MSU political theory senior Nathan Triplett, the campus organizer for Coalition for a Fair Michigan.

Director of Policy for the Triangle Foundation Sean Kosofsky stressed the distinction between civil and ceremonial marriage and the importance of the marriage amendment to lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender couples.

"Don't call it gay marriage," Kosofsky said. "There's no such thing as gay marriage. There's marriage, and some people want into it. You can call it marriage equality for gay and lesbian people."

But Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt disagrees, reinforcing that marriage is between a man and a woman.

"We have seen a deterioration of the home life of children for the past 30 to 40 years," Cropsey sad. "We see another onslaught of people trying to redefine what marriage is.

"Marriage is specifically defined for the future and designed for our children."

Kosofsky outlined major points for the student advocators to stress, such as saying the bill is poorly worded and goes too far.

He also said if the amendment were passed, it would have unintended consequences including taking away health insurance and domestic partner benefits for heterosexual unmarried couples and gay couples.

"Those that are persuadable, get them to vote 'no,'" he said to the students. "Those that will vote 'no', move them to the polls."

Kosofsky outlined the future tactics for the students, as well as taught them about the significance of the issue.

"We have a burden on our shoulders because the data shows we can win," he said. "If the numbers show we can win and we don't, then it's our fault."

The bill was rejected by the Michigan Board of State Canvassers earlier this year, but supporters were able to petition and place it on the general election ballot.

Similar initiatives have occurred in swing states across the country and the amendment has been put on the ballot in more than 10 states in the United States, Triplett said.

"It sends the wrong message, a message that I don't think Michigan wants to send," said Ken Nadolski, the state director for Stonewall Democrats. "Michigan isn't an intolerant place. It sends the wrong message about what kind of state we are and how we treat our fellow citizens."

Triplett said he worries the amendment is politically driven and is only on the ballot to sway voters.

"Some people are using LBGT families as a political football in a key election year," Triplett said. "And it's not just LBGT families being used as a football, it's people of faith, too."

U-M political science and African American studies senior Paul Spurgeon said he worries this amendment will open the door to other initiatives.

"It's homosexuals now. Who knows what the next thing is going to be," he said. "It could be divorce. It's just bringing the government into the bedroom."

Roeder said he worried that because of the language of the amendment, Michigan residents might not understand the severity of the issue and the importance of opposing it.

"If you look at the ballot, it's pretty benign," he said. "There's nothing inflammatory - there's nothing particularly jarring. What we need to do is make people see what these last few words mean, 'or similar union for any purpose.'

"These are very dangerous words."