Although it is already illegal in Michigan, a group of state lawmakers are aiming to take the ban on same-sex marriages a step further with a state constitutional amendment affirming the definition marriage as only being between one man and one woman.

Sen. Alan Cropsey (R-Dewitt) said the amendment is necessary in order to prevent courts from trumping the current law. He said courts are unfairly elevating domestic partnerships and eliminating the will of the people.

Cropsey cited an example in California, where although the people voted to recognize marriage only between one man and one woman, the courts ruled domestic partnerships are entitled to the benefits as a married couple.

But Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) said the amendment is unnecessary and only breeds intolerance.

"The state already has a statute that defines marriage between one man and one woman," said Kolb, who is gay. "These types of intolerant laws are one of the things that draw young workers out of Michigan (because) most of the time young people are looking for a place to live that's inclusive."

Supporters also argue the amendment's passage would be a moral victory.

"It cheapens the whole definition of marriage," Cropsey said. "We need to protect our law from a radical re-definition by a court."

"My decision to support new legislation initiating a referendum for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, is based on my belief in God and his definition of marriage," Rep. Triette Reeves (D-Detroit) said in a written statement.

Opponents say the bill is nothing more than an attack on homosexuals. "It's mean-spirited. I think they want to discriminate against gays and lesbians. That's the real reason they're doing this," said Jay Kaplan, ACLU staff attorney for the Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, Transgender Project.

Cropsey said the amendment's intent is not to be anti-gay. "I don't see how (opponents) are saying that. We don't say gay anywhere (in the amendment). We are in essence putting our state law in the constitution to protect it from an overactive judiciary," Cropsey said.

The amendment would also ban individual cities and public educational facilities from providing domestic partnership benefits. Currently, both the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan recognize domestic partnerships, Kaplan said.

"There are (already) lots of benefits that go to married couples that are denied to same-sex partners," Kolb said. "This constitutional amendment also would not allow the recognition of domestic partnerships by cities. University potential partnership benefits and benefits from the city of Ann Arbor would be wiped out."

In order for the amendment to pass, it would need a two-thirds super majority vote in the state House of Representatives and Senate. The proposed amendment would then need to be approved by a simple majority of voters in Michigan. Cropsey said he hopes the amendment will be on the ballot of the November 2004 general election. Opponents plan to fight the amendment before it even gets on the ballot, Kolb said.

"I don't know if they will (get it on the ballot) or not, its got quite a few cosponsors, which is pretty scary - including Senate Majority leader Ken Sikkema," Kolb said. (But) I think the place to defeat it is in the Senate.