The American Family Association of Michigan filed a lawsuit against MSU on Wednesday, saying the university's health policy clashes with the state's constitution, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Association President Gary Glenn said domestic-partnership benefits violate Proposal 2, which was passed in November 2004 and states marriage is between a man and a woman. The lawsuit was filed in Ingham County Circuit Court.
"MSU's so-called domestic-partnership benefits policy clearly and expressly attempts to equate homosexual relationships in being equal as marriage," Glenn said. "We see this as being in violation of the state's constitution."
MSU spokesman Terry Denbow said as of Wednesday the university hasn't been served the lawsuit and added the university doesn't comment on pending litigation.
The American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, of Michigan is waiting for a decision on a similar case in the court of appeals, said Rana Elmir, the ACLU of Michigan's communications director.
The ACLU's case involves five MSU employees as part of more than 20 plaintiffs suing the state, saying Proposal 2 does not affect partnership benefits.
Elmir said the family association's case would be similar to the ACLU case. She said the group is surprised to see this lawsuit presented.
"We already have a case about domestic-partnership benefits with public employers," she said. "This lawsuit is just repetitive and duplicates our efforts ... because university employees are public employees. The lawsuit we are waiting for would put this entire issue to rest in one way or another."
State universities that provide benefits to gay couples include the University of Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Central Michigan, Northern Michigan, Wayne State, Saginaw Valley State and Oakland universities. MSU has maintained a domestic-partnership policy since 1997.
Glenn said although MSU isn't the only public entity with a policy benefiting same-sex couples, the group doesn't plan to sue other universities.
"This suit will establish a precedent that will apply to all," he said. "Our attorneys believe that the MSU policy provides the best opportunity to make our point because it so clearly attempts to mimic marriage in defining the credibility for this health plan."
Glenn said the university's benefits should be either broader in covering other family members, or the domestic-partner policy should be extinguished.
"If MSU doesn't allow an employee to put her elderly grandmother or little sister on the university's health insurance, how do they justify singling out only employees involved in a homosexual relationship for special treatment?" he said.
Deborah LaBelle, an attorney for the ACLU of Michigan, said benefits are given to children and other dependents, not just couples.
"In one fell swoop, they manage to diminish both what marriage is and to exaggerate the impact of domestic-partner benefits," she said. "What's really bizarre is nobody would say providing health benefits to a boyfriend and girlfriend (in a heterosexual relationship) makes it a marriage."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
