A Michigan Court of Appeals three-judge panel heard oral arguments Tuesday on whether same-sex couples should receive health care benefits from state entities.

The panel heard arguments from Michigan attorney general office attorneys and the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, of Michigan.

About 40 protesters gathered in front of the Michigan Hall of Justice in Lansing in support of domestic-partner benefits.

Proposal 2, which passed in November 2004, amended the state Constitution to define the union between one man and one woman as the only partnership recognized as marriage or a similar union.

Domestic partnerships, or two people living together in a dedicated relationship without being legally married, are not recognized by the state.

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has interpreted the amendment to say that any state institution, such as Wayne State University, the University of Michigan and MSU, that offers domestic partner benefits violates the amendment, Cox spokesman Nate Bailey said.

The ACLU of Michigan asked the court Tuesday to affirm the previous Ingham County circuit judge decision, which ruled in favor of same-sex couples. The ACLU of Michigan argued that benefits are an advantage of being employed, not from being married.

A ruling from the panel is expected within the next six months, but the case likely will be appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Ingham County Circuit Judge Joyce Draganchuk disagreed with the attorney general's interpretation of the amendment last September, deciding domestic-partner benefits are an employment benefit.

MSU currently offers domestic-partner benefits to about 50 same-sex couples, said Val Meyers, president of the MSU Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Faculty, Staff and Graduate Student Association, or MSU GLFSA.

The MSU GLFSA represents lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender faculty, staff and graduate students of MSU.

The case could affect negotiated employment contracts between MSU and the unions, Meyers said.

"These contracts were entered into good faith," Meyers said. "(The court) doesn't like to go in between the employer and employee."

When the proposal was on the ballot, Meyers said she doesn't believe voters wanted to take away health-care benefits from same-sex families and their children.

"There's a lot of concern about what this could mean for people who are counting on these benefits," Meyers said. "If they are taken away, it could be devastating for people."