Wisconsin voters will have an opportunity to decide the future of marriage in the state when an amendment referendum appears on the ballot in the general election this November.

Currently, same-sex marriage is not allowed under state statutes, but the amendment's author, Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, and most Republicans support the resolution as a precautionary measure to prevent what they see as judicial activism. Conversely, state Democrats accuse the amendment of being biased and reaching far beyond banning same-sex marriage.

"The amendment is discriminatory," said Mike Tate, campaign manager for Fair Wisconsin, a group formed in March in reaction to the amendment's passage in the state Legislature by a highly partisan vote. "We are not advocating gay marriage … but [the amendment] affects everyone — gay and straight."

In 2003, Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, vetoed a bill that would have defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. The state Assembly failed by one vote to gain a two-thirds majority to override Doyle's veto.

But it is the second sentence of the amendment prohibiting any status "substantially similar" to marriage that particularly troubles Tate.

"It would take away civil unions, preventing employers from offering domestic benefits," he said. "For people like the elderly, who are not going to remarry, it could be used to prevent them from even seeing each other in the hospital."

Yet some groups are advocating the amendment, especially that second sentence, to prevent the altering of traditional marriage.

"Once you change the definition of marriage, you open the floodgates, and there is no logical stopping point," said Julaine Appling, executive director of the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin. "There is no logical or legal reason [for groups such as polygamists] to not go and say we want in, too."

In 2000, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to prevent the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, leading the Vermont Legislature to separate same-sex unions to a status identical to marriage but by another name. Then, in 2003, the Massachusetts Judicial Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to prevent same-sex marriage at all.

Despite the constitutional amendment's ultimate effect, Tate and Appling agree the people of Wisconsin should have a say in the definition of marriage, and that students will play an integral role in this vote.

"Most [students] aren't married, and this issue isn't staring them in the face," Appling said. "But students now have the opportunity to have a say in what marriage will look like for them, their children and their grandchildren."

University of Wisconsin journalism professor Dhavan Shah, however, said students must be ready to engage in thoughtful discourse before heading off to the polls, noting complicated legal, social and economic issues often get boiled down to simple terms for the public.

"Issues like the marriage amendment or stem-cell research or abortion set up a value conflict between moral and ethical principles," said Shah, whose expertise is in political participation. "Deliberation would hopefully lead to a more reasoned and thoughtful decision."

Wisconsin will be one of six states with a marriage amendment on its ballot this fall. In the fall of 2004, 11 states voted on a marriage amendment, with the measure passing in each state.