[media-credit name=’MEGHAN CONLIN/Herald photo’ align=’alignright’ width=’336′][/media-credit]Wisconsin voters will now be asked to decide whether the state's constitution should ban same-sex marriages and civil unions.

As biting debate flooded the Assembly floor Tuesday evening, a largely partisan 62 to 31 vote eventually emerged to approve the contentious constitutional amendment and pass it on to voters.

While Republicans backed the amendment — called as Senate Joint Resolution 53 or Assembly Joint Resolution 67 — as the only surefire way to protect the sanctity of marriage from activist judges, most Democrats criticized it as a direct attack on gays and lesbians.

"There's times that we come together to make people's lives better in this house … but today is not one of those days," said Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, an openly gay opponent of the resolution. "Today we're here to debate state-sponsored discrimination."

Pocan went on to challenge amendment proponents to tell the gay community sitting in the Assembly's gallery that they don't deserve equal rights.

"I would like for you to explain to them why they have to go to every single voter in the state of Wisconsin … to ask for their individual blessings for what they obviously can do better than most people in this room," he said, referring to Richard Taylor and Ray Vahey of Milwaukee, a gay couple who has been together for nearly 50 years.

Pocan and other Democrats added the resolution reaches far beyond banning gay marriage, by precluding civil unions and domestic partnerships, as well as the more than 200 corresponding state benefits and protections.

But AJR 67 author Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, maintained the comprehensive ban is intended to protect the entire concept of marriage, not simply the eight-letter word.

"[SJR 53] will prevent them from doing what the [state] Supreme Court in Vermont did which is legalizing same-sex marriage from the bench [and] allowing for it to be called a civil union or civil covenant or whatever creative term that the Legislature in that case might come up with," he said.

According to the resolution's language, marriage is to be defined as the union between one man and one woman, and legal recognition is to be denied to any relationship status "substantially similar" to marriage.

Resolution opponents added the amendment's second sentence will actually lead to more judicial activism by forcing the courts to interpret the dangerously vague clause.

An amendment to the resolution was offered by Rep. Louis J. Molepske, D-Stevens Point, who proposed to remove SJR 53/AJR 67's second sentence. Representatives, however, voted to table the amendment.

Additionally, Democrats charged the resolution had little to do with a genuine effort to preserve marriage and more to do with underhanded political motives.

According to a number of Assembly Democrats, SJR 53/AJR 67 supporters are using the "wedge issue" to draw Republican voters to the polls Nov. 7 in an attempt to unseat Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle.

"If there ever was a cynical or politically motivated bill, it is this one," Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, said. "And you ought to be ashamed."

If Republicans were as concerned with protecting marriage as they have claimed, they would have put the amendment on the April ballot, or would have pushed constitutional bans on real social problems like divorce, Democrats added.

Democrats further said that without domestic partnership benefits, the state's economy could suffer as top professionals are discouraged from offering their skills to the University of Wisconsin, the only Big Ten college to not offer such privileges.

Gundrum, however, defended the resolution and said it does not threaten any benefits.

"To date, there has been no court in the entire country that has ruled that any of these amendments [banning same-sex marriage in other states] were intended or do prevent domestic partner benefits," Gundrum said. "It is a red herring that's out there."

As Democrats continued to dominate floor debate, Republican lawmakers largely remained silent and undeterred by Democratic pleas.

Rep. Gregg Underheim, R-Oshkosh, was the only Republican representative to vote against the amendment.