LANSING (AP) — When Alexandra Stern took a job with the University three years ago, a key factor in her decision was the school’s domestic partnership policy, which provides health insurance for her partner, Terri Koreck.

Koreck, a cancer survivor, gave up a job and her benefits to move with Stern from California. She went back to school for a nursing degree — knowing her medical, dental and vision costs would be covered under Stern’s plan.

“I regard health benefits as very important for feeling safe and remaining healthy,” said Koreck, 49. “I need that peace of mind for obvious reasons.”

Recent developments in Michigan, however, have put at risk the benefits of Koreck and other gays whose partners work for cities, counties, universities and public schools.

The state attorney general issued a legal opinion last month saying cities cannot offer same-sex benefits in future contracts because it would violate Michigan’s constitutional gay marriage ban known as Proposal 2. Voters approved the ballot issue in November.

Stern and Koreck — along with 20 other couples — sued the state days after the attorney general’s opinion.

“We have to do something,” Stern said this week.

In a separate case, a Christian legal group this week cited Proposal 2 when asking the state appeals court to prevent the Ann Arbor Public Schools from providing domestic partner benefits.

“It’s very disempowering to see certain constituencies take away the modicum of rights and benefits we have,” said Stern, a 39-year-old medical historian. “We like Michigan. We’d like to stay here. We want it to be a welcoming place, or at least not an overtly hostile place.”

Numerous questions will be considered as the hot-button issue winds its way through the courts, but the outcome ultimately could hinge on six words. Proposal 2 recognizes only the union between a man and a woman as a marriage “or similar union for any purpose.”

What does that mean? Or perhaps just as significantly, what did voters think it meant?

Republican Attorney General Mike Cox interpreted the amendment’s broad language to mean that a city such as Kalamazoo, by designating gay partners to receive the same health and retirement benefits as spouses, gives domestic partnerships a marriage-like status. Proposal 2, he said, prohibits the acknowledgment of same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex relationships.

Patrick Gillen, an attorney for the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, agrees with Cox’s interpretation.

“It means what it says,” Gillen said. “It’s simple and straightforward. Certainly after Proposal 2, it’s very clear Michigan does not intend to recognize same-sex domestic partnerships.”

But public employers and labor unions — along with gay and civil rights groups — say providing benefits to domestic partners in no way recognizes a marriage-like relationship.

Jay Kaplan, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, said when gays and lesbians receive benefits, they’re not trying to assume legal marital status or any of the rights and responsibilities the union provides. They simply want to receive a privilege of employment, he said.

Likewise, Kaplan said, many public employers consider it a competitive advantage to provide equal compensation as a way to recruit and retain gay employees.

The “similar union” debate is tricky for couples like Stern and Koreck, who have been together almost 10 years. Stern said they’re just as committed as any married couple, own a home in Ann Arbor and could legally marry or form a civil union if they lived in Massachusetts or Vermont. They hope to adopt children.

But Stern is adamant their relationship is not like a marriage in the context of a labor agreement.

“I don’t see how any reasonable person can see that getting health benefits through a university is like a marriage,” she said.

The courts eventually will determine the meaning of “similar union” and may look to voter intent to do so.

Here again, both sides differ.

Cox said it was evident to voters that benefits were an issue and might be eliminated if the measure passed. The benefits question was at the forefront of public debate as voters prepared to go to the polls, he wrote.

But Proposal 2 detractors say supporters consistently stated their goal before the election: to define and strengthen marriage, not to deny benefits.