A House committee heard testimony this week on a bill that would cut funding from school districts that offer benefits to the domestic partners of district employees.

The legislation by Rep. Drew Springer, R-Muenster, targets two Central Texas independent school districts—Pflugerville and Austin—that have recently enacted such policies.

The policies mean that same-sex couples can purchase benefits under the districts' health plans. The legislation is not limited to those two districts if others follow suit.

At issue is that adding more people to a school district's benefit plan costs the district—and hence the state—more money; employees purchase their benefits through the district plan, which is funded by tax dollars.

Springer, whose district is about 260 miles from Austin, told the House Public Education Committee his constituents want their tax dollars to be spent in the classroom, not on furthering a social agenda or on broadening the reach of benefits that would cost the district more money.

"We need to make sure our dollars are going to educate our kids," Springer said, "and not for expanding benefits on a social agenda that goes out and says 'We want to be new unique, different and cover things that nobody else has ever covered in Texas.'"

The bill would remove 7.5 percent of the school district's total funding, a number Springer said comes from the estimated cost of insurance benefits.

The committee's Republican chairman, Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock, asked where the money would go if it were withheld from the district, which funding stream would see the reduction and how it might affect federal dollars.

"You've got some issues there you'll have to work through at some point in time," Aycock said.

The legislation was left pending, with Springer telling committee members that he would be happy to work on some of the issues.

Testimony brought up questions of local control, discrimination and civil rights, the constitutional definition of marriage and the responsible use of taxpayer money.

Supporters of the legislation argued that the Pflugerville and Austin policies violate the Texas Constitution by recognizing a relationship that is not marriage, but that looks similar. In 2005, 76 percent of Texas voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the legal union of "one man, one woman."

"They're trying to imitate and mimic something similar to marriage and I'd like to be very clear that our Texas Constitution forbids that," said Jonathan Saenz, president of Texas Values, a conservative advocacy group.

But a prominent teachers' group opposed the bill, saying that the cost of such policies was negligible and that it would widen the pool of qualified school employees if potential hires knew they could cover domestic partners—same sex or otherwise—through the district health plan.

"This is a decision that is best left up to a local district to decide whether they are going to take advantage of that ability to attract and retain qualified personnel," said Ted Melina Raab of the Texas chapter of the American Federation of Teachers.