Columnist Richard Ziser: Initiative confirms definition of marriage

Richard Ziser

Tuesday, Oct. 31, 2000 | 10:02 a.m.

Richard Ziser is chairman of the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage.

Nevada's ballot Question 2 gives constitutional protection to Nevada's current marriage law regarding the gender of the parties entering a marriage union by adding the following language: "Only a marriage between a male and female shall be recognized and given effect in this state."

The added language to our Constitution is only 18 words and was specifically written to be simple and straightforward. With all the rhetoric flying around this initiative one would think it was a lengthy, confusing new concept. Nevada's Protection of Marriage initiative is not taking place in a vacuum, but within the context of a national discussion on the definition of marriage. Question 2 is in response to the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress in 1996.

In order to cast an informed vote on Question 2, one must understand the relationship between the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and Nevada's current marriage law. Once one sees this relationship and how Question 2 pulls all three together, there should be no confusion.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires Nevada to recognize the marriage law of other states, unless Congress allows otherwise. The Defense of Marriage Act did two things: It clarified that with all things dealing with the federal government, marriage is defined as between one man and one woman; and it ensured that the citizens of each state have the right to define the institution of marriage for themselves. Furthermore, each state would not be required to recognize another state's definition if it differed from their own. Nevada state law requires a man and a woman for a marriage union, but it does not state that Nevada will not recognize the marriage laws of another state in regard to gender.

Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act because there was a threat to the various states' sovereignty regarding marriage. In the mid-'90s, the Hawaii Supreme Court found that there was nothing in its state Constitution that prohibited "same-sex marriage." Congress acted to prevent same-sex marriages performed in Hawaii from being forced onto the other states. In 1998 voters in Hawaii voted to define marriage in their constitution.

At this point 34 states have protected their marriage law. At the same time, same-sex marriage activists continuously look for opportunities to challenge the laws of the states which have not yet acted to protect their law.

There are a number of arguments being set forth against Question 2, none of which answer the legal and moral dilemma we are faced with. Most arguments include some level of attack on the integrity of those supporting the initiative. But when all the dust settles we are left with two clearly opposing views: Those who want to change Nevada's public policy on marriage to include same-sex unions, and those who don't.

We live in the United States of America where our diversity is an asset. But all people do not agree an all things. It is by a vote of the people that we determine those issues that we live by as a people. Question 2 is clearly one of those issues.

A yes vote on Question 2 simply confirms Nevada's definition of marriage between a man and a woman.