November just got a little more interesting.

And controversial, too, thanks to the recent Assembly vote that places the future of the gay marriage ban in the hands of voters on Election Day. The constitutional amendment, also known as Senate Joint Resolution 53 or Assembly Joint Resolution 67, proposes to limit marriage to a union between a man and woman and also includes language that threatens civil unions and domestic partner benefits.

Allow me to be blunt: this is a horrible idea. Banning same-sex unions in the state of Wisconsin is not only discriminatory but also detrimental to the University of Wisconsin as an institution.

To begin, it is necessary to tackle the usual controversy surrounding amendments of this nature, whether they arise in Wisconsin or elsewhere.

As in other states, this amendment has sent Republicans and Democrats to their respective corners. Republicans, on one side, claim that the sole purpose of the amendment is to protect the institution of marriage. One of the authors of the amendment, Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, argues that it has everything to do with marriage and little to do with limiting benefits for gays.

Not surprisingly, the Democrats defend the gay community against what many believe is a Republican attempt to focus the election on a hot-button issue instead of the candidates' qualifications or other important issues. Many of the traditional arguments used by Democrats regarding anti-gay legislation center around one principle question: how can a country based on equality and inclusiveness tolerate legislation essentially stripping citizens of their equality because of sexual preference? One opponent of the amendment, openly gay Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, is convinced that if passed, the legislation will produce "state-sponsored discrimination."

These arguments have all been heard before, and will most likely be discussed right up until Election Day. Another issue, however, unique to the city of Madison and the University of Wisconsin system, arguably makes this amendment a bad one for not only the gay community but for students and faculty members alike. It is one that has caused university administrators like Chancellor John Wiley to take a stand, something rarely done by a university about such a sensitive issue.

In an article in The Badger Herald last Thursday, Mr. Wiley spoke about the risks such an amendment could bring to the integrity and academic caliber of the university. He argued that SJR 53/AJR 67 would discourage potential faculty members from seeking positions at UW-Madison because of the limited benefits that would be available to them. The situation is already embarrassing as it is, because UW is the only Big Ten school that offers no domestic partnership benefits.

Explaining why he decided to speak out on such a controversial issue, Mr. Wiley stated that it is his job to look out for the well-being of the university and make sure that the public knows that this legislation is bad for UW.

I understand that gay marriage is a heated issue. I respect the fundamental differences in opinion on the matter. But because this amendment, in addition to being discriminatory, will undoubtedly hurt the university, it seems clear what the voters must do in November. Whether Mr. Gundrum likes it or not, this amendment has everything to do with benefits and discrimination against gays, and little to do with the actual institution of marriage.

Let us continue to stand out as a university community for our research capabilities, our academic standing and our lively campus culture — not for our discrimination against gays.

Emily Friedman ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in journalism and legal studies.