The lawsuit against MSU was brought by the American Family Association, or AFA, a conservative group that claimed the university violated the 2004 Proposal 2, which became a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said the issue before the court is whether or not employment benefits can be granted based on treating homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage, which would be unconstitutional according to the amendment.

“If MSU says to an employee that they can put their sick grandmother or lesbian partner under their health insurance, that would be constitutional because it’s broadly available,” he said. “The issue before the Supreme Court is not benefits, it is the issue of the basis of getting these benefits.”

Jay Kaplin, LGBT staff attorney for the Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said he supports the court’s decision to refuse hearing the case against MSU.

If the court would have allowed the AFA to sue the university, it would have set a precedent that anyone can sue an organization simply because they disagree with the institution’s policies, Kaplin said.

“What we would see is a lot of lawsuits and anti-gay groups like the AFA suing in court,” Kaplin said. “There has to be more of a connection to the issue at hand, not just that you don’t like what’s happening.”

Glenn said the court refused to hear the lawsuit against MSU because of a technicality. The court was scheduled to hear a similar case involving the domestic partner benefits for employees in the Ann Arbor school system. Instead of hearing the two extra lawsuits, the case beginning next week will rule on domestic partner benefits for all public employers, he said.

“The court is clearly stating that it’s going to resolve the issue across the board rather than looking at MSU in one case and Ann Arbor in another,” he said.

Meggin Wellings, former co-president of People Respecting Individuality, Diversity and Equality, or PRIDE, said the AFA has a very narrow definition of families.

“An LGBT family is going to rely on those benefits just as much as a traditional family,” Wellings said. “Families are expensive investments, and not being able to care for your family is a very scary thing.”