Both sides at a debate concerning the proposed constitutional marriage amendment maintained their composure last night in the Weasler Auditorium except for one instance. A woman who posed a question to the panel said gay people "add nothing to our society or species," evoking an angry response from the anti-amendment representatives. A majority of audience members applauded for a response to her comment.

"I was very frustrated by how hostile the group against the amendment seemed to be," said Jonathan Mou, a senior in the Business Administration who attended the debate. "I was hoping for intellectual framing and it never seemed to materialize."

An estimated more than 300 students attended the debate, which was sponsored by the College Democrats of Marquette, Marquette College Republicans, Students for a Fair Wisconsin and the Gay/Straight Alliance.

Sarah Kirby, a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences, member of the College Republicans and debate panel coordinator, said more anti-amendment groups sponsoring the event did not matter because the actual debate featured an equal number of panelists representing each side. Christopher Wolfe, a political science professor and member of the Wisconsin Coalition for Traditional Marriage and Rick Esenberg, a professor of law, represented the pro-amendment argument. Scott Moss, assistant professor of law and Mike Tate, campaign manager of Fair Wisconsin spoke against the amendment.

Both Wolfe and Esenberg said in their opening statements the main objective of the amendment was to prevent judges from allowing institutions similar to marriage or civil unions to occur between a homosexual couple.

Throughout the debate, both Wolfe and Esenberg made it clear they did not believe gay people should be excluded from rights or benefits.

This amendment "protects the word marriage and prevents the creation of civil unions that are different from marriage in name only," Wolfe said in his opening statement.

On the opposing side, Tate and Moss argued that the amendment had little to do with gay marriage. They said it was about the rights of an unmarried couple regardless of whether they are gay or straight. These two brought up instances in which couples lost rights concerning health care, personal finance and domestic violence in states where a similar amendment had been passed.

The amendment "is about who we are as people. Why does it make us a better state? Why does this make us a better place to live? Why does it make us better people?" Tate said. "I would say if it passes it would make us a worse state."

Wolfe countered the anti-amendment statements and said one major reason marriage should remain in the traditional sense was children.

"What marriage is about most importantly – not exclusively – but most importantly, is children," Wolfe said. "Are we prepared for motherless and fatherless families?"

Moss responded by arguing that many children living in orphanages would be better off adopted by gay couples than continuing to live in orphanages or foster homes.

Despite their differences, both sides agreed there was a sense of uncertainty associated with the amendment. Because the state government had never faced legislation concerning this issue, representatives from both sides said it was difficult to predict what would happen and it was likely that further legislation would follow.

Students who attended the debate said they were glad the issue was addressed in an academic setting.

"It raises awareness about the issue," said Malika Taalbi, a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences and a member of Students for a Fair Wisconsin and College Democrats.

"Both sides have arguments that need to be clarified," Kirby said. "It serves as a way to package the whole argument . It's meant to provide an educated decision before you go to the polls."