MADISON, Wis. (AP) – In the first protest of its kind in the U.S., Madison leaders will be able to denounce the state’s new constitutional ban on same-sex marriage when they take their oath of office.

The City Council voted 13-4 on Tuesday night to allow hundreds of elected and appointed officials to add a statement saying they are taking the oath under protest because the amendment “besmirches our constitution.” The statement also includes a promise to work to overturn the same-sex marriage ban and prevent discrimination resulting from its passage.

GLBT rights groups, including the Human Rights Campaign and Fair Wisconsin, believe it is the first such protest in the country.

Supporters on the council and Mayor Dave Cieslewicz say the protest will allow city leaders to take the oath of office – a pledge to uphold the state and U.S. Constitutions – with a clear conscience. Gays and lesbians also may be more likely to serve in public office, they said.

“Voters of this city are going to be very happy to know that their elected officials are as committed to reversing discrimination as they are,” City Council President Austin King said. “You can be loyal to the law while also being disappointed in it and engaged in a process to change it.”

Seventy-six percent of voters in Madison, the state capital, voted against the ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions on Nov. 7. Nonetheless, the ban passed with more than 59 percent of the vote statewide – a stinging defeat for GLBT rights activists who once looked to Wisconsin for leadership.

“We appreciate Madison elected officials speaking out,” said Josh Freker, a spokesperson for Fair Wisconsin, which led opposition to the amendment. “This will remind people about this amendment and why it is problematic and why it is going to have a discriminatory impact.”

Howard Schweber, a University of Wisconsin political science professor who supports same-sex marriage, criticized the protest, which he compared to southern officials who pledged not to carry out desegregation orders during the 1960s.

“This is a very public statement, taken in an official capacity, that sounds an awful lot like a declaration of intent to undermine a duly enacted law,” Schweber said. “While it may serve a liberal political cause today, the principle can be used to serve a conservative or reactionary political cause tomorrow.”