Letter: Assembly bill was mislabeled as ‘gay rights’

Friday, April 27, 2001 | 10:18 a.m.

I have read your newspaper daily since moving to Las Vegas two years ago and I appreciate it greatly. Thus I was appalled by the headline of a story in your April 16 edition, "Opponents of gay rights bill await outcome of hearing." Assembly Bill 496 was not a "gay rights bill." Did you have a particular goal to call it such? Did you have a goal to give the proponents of November 2000's Question 2 more support? AB496 is for heterosexual, homosexual and platonic couples. Your headline confused issues.

I urged the passing of AB496, which died in the Assembly. I am a heterosexual woman living in a loving relationship with a heterosexual man. This bill would have helped people like us, who cannot afford to get married. My significant other's debt load, due to medical expenses, keeps us from getting married. However, AB496 would have allowed us to make legal commitments and decisions with and for each other in regards to hospital visitation, beneficiary issues, memorial services, etc.

This bill would also have benefited people like my 72-year-old aunt who, along with her roommate of 40-plus years, were nuns until the 1960s. They do not have parents or siblings, and they know each other better than anyone else could know them. A bill like this would have the same benefits for them in regards to hospital visitation, beneficiary issues and memorial services, etc. It would also have benefited senior citizens who cannot marry because they might lose other benefits, such as retirement from a previous spouse, etc.

KATHLEEN DICKINSON