With the countdown to Election Day at 12 days now, the University of Wisconsin University Committee publicly opposed the marriage amendment in a statement Wednesday.

The University Committee, comprised of six UW professors, is the executive committee of the UW Faculty Senate. And according to committee chair Robert Mathieu, the group is responsible for being an "interface" between the Faculty Senate and its constituents.

According to the statement — written by Mathieu — the committee believes the contentious marriage amendment would "institutionalize intolerance" in Wisconsin, thereby affecting UW and the state as a whole.

"The intolerance is in the perspective that there will be certain relationships between people that will not have the same benefit as those within the traditional marriage, so it inherently is limiting the access to benefits … to a particular group," Mathieu said.

The Faculty Senate opposed the amendment when it was first suggested in 2004, Mathieu said, and the statement is a timely reiteration of the senate's position.

UW Provost Patrick Farrell echoed the sentiments of the Faculty Senate and said if the marriage amendment passes next week, it will damper the state's image nationwide.

Whether gay or straight, Farrell said, people will not feel comfortable living in Wisconsin if the amendment passes.

"They'll say, 'You know, if that's reflective of the overall attitude of the state, I'm not sure I really want to live there,'" Farrell said. "They won't even apply, or won't even consider. They'll just choose to go elsewhere."

Such a public view would stunt the progress and growth of UW, Mathieu said.

"Any time that the state or the University of Wisconsin is not attractive to all of the leaders in the nation and in the world, then we put ourselves at a disadvantage in recruiting them," Mathieu said.

But the amendment's author, state Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, said he is not surprised by the stance of UW Faculty Senate, adding the amendment simply solidifies the definition of marriage in Wisconsin so the state Supreme Court cannot legalize gay marriage or civil unions in the future.

"If they want to make sure that marriage between a man and a woman still has some meaning five years from now, 10 years from now, 50 years from now … they need to make sure activist judges on our Supreme Court don't redefine marriage from the bench," Gundrum said.

UW is the only Big Ten school that does not offer domestic partner benefits, and Farrell said that is because UW has a strong relationship with the state Legislature unmatched by any other state.

That relationship, Farrell said, makes it difficult for the university to take independent action.

Gundrum said domestic partner benefits at UW should not be a priority, though, because they would be too costly.

"We have enough trouble making sure we have funds for the UW as it is," Gundrum said. "To go spend more for benefits for live-in boyfriends and girlfriends — I think we should focus that money on students' education."

Gundrum released a statement Wednesday against the New Jersey Supreme Court's recent decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

He said the decision was undemocratic, and should make students realize why it is "so important" to vote in favor of the amendment Nov. 7.

"It was done by activist judges; it was not done by any policymaking body elected by the people for the purpose of making such policy changes," Gundrum said. "And again, it devalues the unique status that man-woman marriage has had since the dawn of time."

But Rep. Spencer Black, D-Madison, said the New Jersey Supreme Court made the right decision because all couples are entitled to the same rights and responsibilities.

Even though the New Jersey law does not directly affect Wisconsin residents, Black said he thinks UW students will vote against the marriage amendment "in large measure."

"The constitutional amendment that is proposed and will be on the ballot is far broader than a marriage amendment," Black said. 'It will prohibit not only marriage … it will prohibit a broad range of possible legal protections such as civil unions and domestic partner benefits."