Two panelists discussed the controversial same-sex marriage amendment at a one-and-a-half-hour debate in Sensenbrenner Hall on Tuesday.

Brenda Lewison, an equal rights and labor law attorney from the Law Office of Arthur Heitzer, said the language of the amendment indicates that rights of gays and lesbians would be hurt if the amendment is passed next month.

The proposed amendment says, "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."

"It is the second sentence that is troublesome," Lewison said. "It goes too far."

Lewison said the amendment would ban civil unions, domestic partnerships or any other legal status between two people.

She said the amendment would be overwhelmingly passed if only the first sentence were to be considered.

"The second sentence creates uncertainty and will probably result in people being denied rights and being treated incredibly unfairly," she said.

"A civil marriage is a bundle of rights and responsibilities," she said. The Legislature could allow civil unions or domestic partnerships, but "it would be precluded from doing that" if the amendment is passed.

Jordan Lorence, senior counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, saw the proposed amendment differently, and argued against San Francisco civil unions in front of the California Supreme Court in 2004. Citing that 20 other states have approved similar amendments, Lorence said he thinks this is a sound amendment.

He said voters should approve the amendment because marriage exists as an institution that provides for the rearing of children that "are inevitably going to be produced" between a man and a woman.

"The government's interest has something to do with the rearing of children," he said.

Marriage is an arrangement where "children are raised in best social construct possible." Without this arrangement, chaos and exploitation would result, he said.

"There's a common good to marriage versus 'I should be able to do whatever I want,' " he said.

After the debate, the two speakers took questions and comments from audience members in the standing-room-only classroom.

One audience member, who said he has been married for 19 years, said, "It doesn't matter to me who others are married to. I don't see the social harm to my marriage or to the institution of marriage."

"It harms society even if it doesn't harm individual marriage," Lorence said in response.

Second-year law student Martin Price, a member of the GLBT-Straight Legal Society and one of the organizers of the event, said gays and lesbians want civil unions to develop their relationships and families. A civil union, he said after the debate, is an institution of marriage that would "provide a safe and comfortable home for families that are not inevitable — that they have to work at creating."

Gays and lesbians in contractual relationships involving real estate, bank accounts and wills could also be affected if the amendment is passed, Lewison said.

"Arguably, these contracts will not be enforced by our courts," she said. "The courts will be obligated under the second sentence of this amendment to invalidate these contracts."

"Marriage is not a benefits program for loving couples," Lorence said. "There are lots of people outside of the benefits realm."

The social security system does not always give benefits to others, and the system also includes a marriage penalty for those who live together but do not get married, he said.

"Marriage has to do with the development of the economic unit," Lewison said. "Marriage is an economic choice."

Lewison, who is a lesbian, said the amendment could jeopardize any potential legal agreement between her and her partner.

"Even if we had a constitutional agreement, Wisconsin courts under this amendment could aggregate these agreements," she said.

Lawsuits over same-sex marriage have come up in other states, and there is reason to believe that the same lawsuits will come to Wisconsin if this amendment is not passed, Lorence said.

"The state will be vulnerable to lawsuits saying there is a right to same-sex marriage, and a judge will decide whether that is right or wrong," she said.

The state amendment process includes approval by two successive legislatures and final approval by the voters. The State Assembly and Senate approved the amendment in 2004 and 2006. A majority of voters on Nov. 7 will have the final say.