Before the red curtain of the Orpheum Theatre Tuesday night, four legal and business experts debated the divisive constitutional marriage amendment that will appear on Wisconsin ballots Nov. 7.
Apart from a few glaring eyes and accusations of dishonesty, the panel remained on task and shared its viewpoints with some 30 attendants.
Amendment supporters included Rick Esenberg, a Milwaukee lawyer, and Christopher Wolfe, a political science professor at Marquette University in Milwaukee. Their opponents included Bruce Harville, a Madison business consultant, and Tamara Packard, a Madison lawyer.
Wolfe disputed some of the most common arguments against the amendment, such as doubts over its constitutional necessity. According to Wolfe, the topic must be decided by Wisconsin voters rather than the courts.
"It is now a clear possibility that a state Supreme Court … [could] evoke gay marriage on the state," Wolfe said.
Fellow amendment supporter Esenberg also showed concern for judicial activism, but also stressed protecting marriage as an institution.
"Marriage is perhaps the most vital institution we have," Esenberg said. "Putting [the amendment] in the Constitution is the only way to ensure the preferred definition of marriage."
The amendment supporters appeared to be in the hot seat most of the evening, receiving the majority of questions and occasional snickers or soft mumblings from disagreeing audience members.
Wolfe and Esenberg voiced their criticism of amendment opponents but also received criticisms from Packard and Harville.
Packard served as the opponents' legal counter to Wolfe and Esenberg, and Harville gladly yielded his time to her when he felt his business expertise was irrelevant.
According to Packard, the biggest problem with the proposed amendment lies in its language. Specifically, Packard said she is worried about future interpretations of the contentious "so-called second sentence" that would ban any "legal status substantially similar to marriage," commonly referred to as civil unions.
Packard said the clause would leave some families in "legal limbo" because it does not clearly define other relationships, including heterosexual domestic partnerships.
"No Wisconsin family should be denied the ability to protect itself," Packard added. "Yet that's exactly what this proposal does."
Aside from the three legal experts, Harville argued the economic aspect of the amendment, saying it could damage Wisconsin's economy.
"We can't afford to drive anyone away," said Harville, adding the amendment could hurt Wisconsin's job recruitment and tourism.
While the panelists disagreed distinctively on the proposed constitutional marriage amendment, they seemingly were eye-to-eye on one particular viewpoint.
According to Harville, whether the amendment passes or fails, it will "redefine Wisconsin's image."