Wisconsin voters will decide whether or not to allow same-sex marriage or civil unions to exist on Nov. 7. The statewide referendum figures to be one of the most contentious issues this election season.

The referendum is split down party lines — the Democratic Party is for the amendment and the Republican Party is against.

Democrats claim the Republicans are only using the amendment to get elected, whereas Republicans contend this decision should be left to the citizens of Wisconsin.

The proposed amendment reads, "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

According to Bob Delaporte, director of communications for the Wisconsin Republican Party, no out-of-state judges should decide what Wisconsin law should be. In Massachusetts, the state's high court allowed gays and lesbians to marry because they believed there was no constitutional reason to deny them the right.

"We believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman," Delaporte said. "The biggest thing is that Wisconsin people should decide Wisconsin law."

Of the 20 states that have passed marriage amendments, an average of 68 percent voted for the amendment.

According to Jessica Erickson, communications director of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, the Democratic Party does not support the amendment because it singles out a minority of the population for discrimination.

"On top of that, this amendment is completely unnecessary," she wrote in an e-mail.

The amendment also bans all civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex partners, Erickson said.

Passing the amendment would damage critical benefits for all unmarried couples, according to Mike Tate, campaign manager for Fair Wisconsin.

"Domestic violence protection for unmarried couples would not be offered after the amendment passes," Tate said.

Fair Wisconsin, an organization opposing the amendment, has been campaigning since the referendum was proposed in February.

According to Delaporte, the amendment was proposed because the state statute currently defines marriage between a husband and a wife and not a man and a woman.

Colorado Springs, Colo.-based Focus on the Family, a national conservative organization, joined the fray last week to campaign for the amendment's passage. It filed with the State Elections Board last week to create a referendum committee to use funding for this campaign.

The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to ignore gay marriages performed elsewhere, according to Stateline.org, an online political publication.

Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed a bill defining marriage as between a man and a woman was in 2003.

In January 2004 the amendment was brought to the legislature, passed through two consecutive sessions and is now on the ballot.

The state Supreme Court and the attorney general held that only heterosexual marriages are legal, according to Stateline.

Jason Rae, College Democrats of Marquette president and sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences, said the amendment is wrong because it is writing discrimination into the constitution.

"Recently a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor left the system because he was not allowed domestic partnership benefits," Rae said.

The potential impact of the amendment is not limited to the academic world, opponents say.

"Wisconsin is facing a brain drain and if this amendment passes it will be another stone piled against getting big companies to come to Wisconsin," Tate said.

According to Christopher Wolfe, professor of political science, the people who wrote the amendment wanted to prevent something like marriage from existing for same-sex couples.

"The second line of the amendment exists to prevent evasion of the first line," Wolfe said.

Fair Wisconsin is trying to make the implications of the second line broader so the amendment will not pass, Wolfe said.

According to The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, 44 states have laws protecting traditional marriage, and six states do not have statutory or constitutional language preserving the traditional understanding of marriage.