Benefits measure reopens marriage debate

Erin Neff

Wednesday, April 11, 2001 | 11:26 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The definition of marriage was disputed at the polls last fall as proponents of Question 2 won the first step in designating the union as one between a man and a woman.

But testimony into a health insurance beneficiary bill Tuesday reopened the debate and sparked staunch opposition from many of the same people who fought for Question 2.

Assembly Bill 496, sponsored by David Parks, D-Las Vegas, would allow a person to designate someone who is not a spouse as a "reciprocal beneficiary," entitled to inheritances, sick-leave benefits, medical decisions and funeral arrangements.

The reciprocal beneficiary provision would be a legal agreement between two unmarried adults, entered into by completing forms provided by the attorney general's office.

"This just gives the same opportunities that are already granted to spouses," said Parks, the Legislature's only openly gay lawmaker.

Health providers and rights activists testified in favor of the measure, saying it would allow someone close to the person to make arrangements in the event no other family members were still living at the time of that person's death.

The bill now would permit partners to inherit each other's money upon a death, make medical decisions if the partner could not and enjoy legal protection for other rights. Businesses and public agencies would have the option of extending insurance coverage to an employee's partner.

The bill also allows for formal dissolution of such relationships.

But representatives of the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints testified that the measure is an affront to their definition of marriage.

Testimony Tuesday was similar to what was heard on the campaign trail.

"The people of the state of Nevada have already spoken on this in a huge way," said Richard Ziser, chairman of the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, the group that launched the ballot question drive last year.

After receiving support from 70 percent of the voters, the question will again be placed on the ballot in 2002. If it passes a second time the state's Constitution will be amended to include the definition of marriage approved by voters.

The Judiciary Committee took no action on the bill Tuesday.