Marriage question heats up ballot issues

Saturday, Oct. 21, 2000 | 3:01 a.m.

Buried in the hoopla over this year's presidential and congressional races are ballot initiatives that will ask Nevada voters to make choices on same-sex marriage, fluoridated water and medicinal marijuana.

These are controversial issues at the national level, but Nevada politicians rarely air their opinions on them. The debates have been left to loosely based coalitions formed to support or oppose specific measures.

Question 2 on the statewide ballot is a perfect example. A group called the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage supports this proposed Nevada constitutional amendment to recognize marriages involving only male and female individuals.

State law already legalizes marriage only between members of the opposite sex. But coalition Chairman Richard Ziser, an unsuccessful 1998 Clark County School Board candidate, said the law may not prevent challenges from people of the same sex who were married in other states.

"The coalition believes that marriage should remain the way it is," Ziser said. "But our definition of marriage as it is defined in Nevada law could be challenged by a court or impacted by a Legislature in another state, and we could have nothing to do with it."

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman in the Nevada Constitution would compel the state Supreme Court to uphold that provision, Ziser said.

"Nevadans are independent," he said. "We don't want people from another state telling us what to do."

But the Rev. Valerie Garrick of United Church of Christ opposes Question 2 because she said it discriminates against gay couples. The co-chairwoman of Equal Rights Nevada, a group formed to fight the ballot initiative, said she believes that the state constitution is no place for discriminatory language. She also said the state law is discriminatory.

"We want to create laws that support all families, not just families with a man and a woman," Garrick said. "People are afraid of what homosexuality means. But no matter what your religious beliefs or personal views are on it, it's discrimination focused on one group."

Garrick said she believes same-sex partners should have the same rights as heterosexual couples on issues ranging from parental custody to battles over estates after a partner's death. She said she fears that passage of Question 2 would lead to future constitutional amendments aimed at excluding other minority groups.

"When it's put in the constitution, it's harder to change," Garrick said.

The issue has obvious religious overtones. Reform branches of organized religion tend to favor same-sex marriages, whereas orthodox adherents are rigidly opposed.

Same-sex marriage became a national issue in 1996 when Hawaii's Supreme Court, in a ruling on a marriage law, ordered the state to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. But Hawaii's attorney general appealed the ruling, and an injunction was placed on the licenses. In 1998 Hawaiians voted to amend their constitution to legalize only heterosexual marriages.

Vermont's Legislature this year became the first to approve a civil-union law for gays. But many of the state's residents were so outraged that five Republican lawmakers who supported the law lost their re-election bids in a primary last month.

UNLV political science department Chairman Ted Jelen said, however, that he does not believe Question 2 will have much of a coattail impact in terms of helping or hurting particular Nevada candidates. He said that's because most candidates have not addressed the issue.

If Question 2 passes, it must be approved again by majority vote and would appear on the November 2002 ballot. State law requires that proposed constitutional amendments be approved in two consecutive elections before taking effect.

Only Hawaii and Alaska have approved similar amendments.

Other statewide ballot initiatives are Questions 1 and 9 -- there are no Questions 3 through 8.

Medical marijuana: Question 9, the marijuana initiative that was approved by 59 percent of Nevadans in 1998, will be added to the state constitution if it passes again Nov. 7. Question 9 is so numbered because it had that number two years ago.

The initiative would legalize possession and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes with physician approval. Question 9 also would require parental consent for minors and would authorize "appropriate methods" of supplying it to patients.

Polls indicate the measure should pass easily. Again, Jelen does not see the marijuana initiative having any coattails that could impact candidates.

Dan Hart, spokesman for Question 9 proponent Nevadans for Medical Rights, said it would help patients cope with catastrophic ailments by easing pain and suffering.

The initiative is being financed primarily by Americans for Medical Rights, whose backers include University of Phoenix founder John Sperling and New York philanthropist George Soros.

"It's fundamentally an issue of compassion," Hart said. "We're trying to provide physicians with the tools to treat catastrophic illnesses and make the patients more comfortable."

Question 9 opponents include Metro Police, Nevada Sheriff's and Chief's Association and the Police and Fire Executives of Southern Nevada.

Aside from concerns that marijuana causes cancer and other health problems is whether the initiative will hold up legally. The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a similar California measure a blow by ruling against a marijuana distribution club in Oakland.

If Question 9 is approved, Hart said it will be up to the Nevada Legislature to approve methods of distribution.

Larry Matheis, Nevada State Medical Association executive director, said his organization does not support or oppose Question 9. But he would prefer that the plant's effectiveness be laboratory-tested before it is distributed medically.

"There is a concern that physicians can be sanctioned by the Drug Enforcement Administration and lose their prescribing authority," Matheis said.

"A better approach would be for the federal government to authorize appropriate clinical evaluations. What is being argued now is anecdotal and based on individual experiences."

Matheis said physicians should be able to distribute the plant if clinical tests prove its medical value. But Hart, who said he has seen no proof that marijuana is harmful, said a large enough segment of the public has used the plant and clinical tests are unnecessary.

"We have enough evidence of people who have used the drug," Hart said. "All we're talking about is putting marijuana on a par with any number of other drugs that physicians can prescribe."

State investment: Question 1, which is on the ballot for the first time, would amend the Nevada Constitution to allow state money to be invested in companies to promote economic diversification.

The measure, placed on the ballot by the 1999 Legislature, would permit investments only when the state can expect "a reasonable rate of return." Such investments would require approval by two-thirds of the Senate and Assembly and also by the governor.

But the conservative Nevada Policy Research Institute of Reno opposes the measure, terming it a form of corporate welfare.

"To ensure a bright economic future for all Nevadans, officials from the public and private sector should indeed look to diversify the Silver State's economy," D. Dowd Muska wrote on the institute's behalf. "But diversification will not result from an unholy alliance between pork-barrel politics and government-knows-best central planning."

The Nevada Taxpayers Association also opposes the measure, arguing that it's unclear where the state will get the money and how it will determine which companies get the funds.

Fluoride question: The only Clark County initiative, also known as Question 1, is about the fluoride that has been added to local drinking water since March 1. This is a tricky ballot question where a "yes" vote means the voter wishes to remove fluoride and a "no" vote would be to retain fluoridation.

Those who support the initiative, meaning they want to get rid of the fluoride, include Summerlin resident Robert Hall, president of the Nevada Environmental Coalition. Anti-fluoride crusades have long been organized by right-wing groups that consider fluoridation part of a government conspiracy to contaminate water.

Hall said many scientists believe fluoride is a "systemic poison."

"It makes bones slightly harder or more brittle, and that's bad for seniors," Hall said. "It causes dental fluorosis. There is also the issue of medication through potable water. Fluoridation is not necessary to treat potable water."

Initiative opponents, meaning they want to keep the fluoride, include Citizens for Healthy Smiles and the Medical and Dental Associations of Nevada.

In a letter to community leaders asking for their opposition to Question 1, Citizens for Healthy Smiles Chairwoman Louise Helton of Las Vegas wrote that dental problems represent the seventh most common reason children are treated at University Medical Center.

"Studies show fluoridated water reduces cavities in children by 60 percent and 35 percent in adults," Helton wrote. "Fluoride for the Las Vegas Valley's water supply costs less than 25 cents per resident every year. Compare this to the average $90 cost to fill one cavity, and you can easily see that this issue also makes financial sense."

City initiatives: The cities of Las Vegas, Henderson and Boulder City have separate ballot questions.

Las Vegas residents are being asked to consider whether to levy an additional 9.5 cents in property taxes per $100 of assessed valuation over the next 30 years to help pay for four fire stations, station improvements, fire vehicles and 113 firefighters, paramedics and support staff. The cost works out to $33.25 annually for owners of $100,000 homes.

Proponents argue that city firefighters want to reduce their average response time from the current 7 minutes, 43 seconds, to 6 minutes. Opponents argue that Las Vegans would be unfairly taxed because the new stations are planned for new areas only.

Henderson voters are faced with an initiative that would add 24 cents in property taxes per $100 of assessed valuation over the next 30 years to improve police and fire protection. That translates to $84 a year for the owner of a $100,000 home.

Of the money collected, 95 percent would go toward the hiring of public safety personnel and maintenance of existing police and fire stations. The other 5 percent would be used to build and equip stations.

In Boulder City, the issue is whether to spend an existing $3.5 million in the Capital Improvement Fund to reconstruct streets.

archive