Homosexual public employees might no longer receive domestic partner benefits after the state Senate approved two resolutions Thursday, in an effort to encourage the Michigan Supreme Court to ban benefits.

These include state government and public university employees.

The Senate voted 22-16 to pass the resolutions that prevent money from being spent on same-sex benefits, before the Supreme Court can more clearly define a proposal that passed last year.

"I think the Supreme Court will find that the voters of Michigan said that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think the people were very clear when they voted on it," Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, said. "We've just gone through a budget cut, yet (Gov. Jennifer Granholm) believes that taxpayer dollars should be given to homosexual couples, to have special benefits that nobody else has."

Cropsey introduced the bills to oppose Ingham County Circuit Court Judge Joyce Draganchuk's Sept. 27 ruling that Michigan's ban against gay marriage does not prevent public employers from providing benefits for the partners of their gay employees.

In November, the state of Michigan passed Proposal 2, an amendment stating that the union between a man and a woman is the only form of marriage recognized by the state, "or similar union for any purpose."

This phrase has caused interpretation debates between the parties. Granholm's spokeswoman Liz Boyd said Granholm will try to have domestic partnership benefits approved for state employees. Boyd said Granholm will ask Michigan's Civil Service Commission, an independent body that approves state employee contracts, to approve gay partnership benefits for state employees in new contracts. When Proposal 2 passed last November, Granholm held back on the new labor contracts "until a court of competent jurisdiction ruled on its lawfulness," Boyd said.

Now that Judge Draganchuk has ruled on the matter, Boyd said Granholm is abiding by Draganchuk's ruling by presenting the new labor contracts.

"We were very concerned when Proposal 2 was on the ballot that the language was sufficiently vague and it would create confusion, and indeed it did," Boyd said. "We have a ruling from the court that this contract, this negotiated employee benefit does not violate the (Michigan) constitution."

Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, said the administration should wait for a court decision before extending benefits to same-sex couples.

"The resolutions that passed (Thursday) send a statement to the administration not to rush to grant benefits before the courts have had an opportunity to have the final say," Kuipers said.

Erik Green, treasurer of MSU's Alliance of Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgender students said he disagreed with the resolution.

"This is clearly an example of some legislators trying to push their intolerance and hatred onto the rest of the state," Green said. "I see this as definitely one of the driving issues that's making me leave Michigan.

"Gay partnership benefits are not going to harm anyone who is heterosexual."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.