Friday, Nov. 1, 2002 | 5:18 a.m.
WEEKEND EDITION: Nov. 3, 2002
A proposed constitutional amendment on Tuesday's general election ballot that would restrict marriage to heterosexuals has pitted well-financed proponents against underfunded foes who say the initiative discriminates against gays and lesbians.
Passage of Question 2 would make Nevada the third state, following Alaska and Hawaii, to include a marriage definition in its constitution.
Proponents such as Richard Ziser, chairman of the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage in Nevada, say the amendment would protect states' rights and the sanctity of marriage.
"What Question 2 does is provide constitutional protection for Nevada's marriage law," Ziser said. "When there are challenges to marriage laws they happen through the court system and that's where problems arise. We just want to make sure that under state policy it won't be challenged. That's the advantage of having it in the constitution."
But foes, such as Equal Rights Nevada chairwoman Liz Moore, charge that the proposed amendment is redundant with existing state law and simply motivated by bigotry.
"The way the coalition believes is the best way to protect marriage is to deny rights to people who are not married," Moore said. "Less than 10 years ago it was a felony in Nevada for two consenting adults of the same gender to be intimate in private and this is in a state where prostitution is legal. But the people in the coalition are the same ones who opposed the 1993 repeal of that law."
The ballot measure has also divided Nevada's clergy. The Catholic Dioceses of Las Vegas and Reno and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are among the supporters of Question 2.
"We support Question 2 because the issue associated with it goes to the very foundation of our society," Ace Robison, Southern Nevada spokesman for the Mormon church, said. "God's plan for us involves the family, which consists of a mother and father and children. Anything that would condemn that we should beware.
"We are accused of bigotry and so on but I hope it's not true on an individual basis and I know it's not true on an institutional basis as far as the church is concerned. This is just about preserving the sanctity of marriage."
But many Christian ministers and Jewish rabbis across the state have spoken out against Question 2.
"It's a civil rights issue," Rev. Massy Gentry of Christ Church Episcopal of Las Vegas said. "It's an attempt to limit the rights of people who are not engaged in relationships other than those involving men and women.
"Fundamentally, churches fall on one of two sides. One side sees itself as a means of grace and the other side sees itself as an instrument of the law. We should err on the side of grace and openness instead of strictness and legality."
Regardless of the election's outcome, both sides are already gearing up for a potential legislative battle next year that could determine the rights of same-sex couples to have hospital visitations, make funeral arrangements and inherit property from partners. The 2000 Census estimated there were roughly 5,000 households in Nevada with same-sex partners.
The proponents have enjoyed a decided advantage in both political momentum and campaign money. In order to amend the state constitution, a referendum must be approved in two consecutive general elections. Question 2 cleared the first hurdle in November 2000 by logging 70 percent of the vote. And even opponents concede that passage is again likely on Tuesday.
It didn't hurt that the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage in Nevada, which is campaigning for the amendment, had $523,231 in the bank on Aug. 22 and then raised an additional $351,468 through Oct. 24. The opponents, led by Equal Rights Nevada, had only $1,087 in the bank as of Aug. 22, raised an additional $26,489 through Oct. 24 and had $5,706 in in-kind contributions.
The coalition, which has spent $730,967 since late August, mostly for advertising, was able to buy television and radio time and distribute literature by mail and door-to-door. From Oct. 14 through Monday the coalition will have run 560 30-second television spots on local stations.
Equal Rights Nevada, which spent only $18,198 through last week, was limited to some radio spots, a postcard mailer and phone banks.
A state law already legalizes marriage only for heterosexual couples. But proponents argue that the law would not prevent Nevada from having to recognize same-sex unions from other states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That clause compels one state to recognize marriages from other states, Ziser said.
Proponents fear that that clause could be applied in the case of same-sex couples who come to Nevada from Vermont, the only state that recognizes civil unions involving gays and lesbians.
"Ultimately what they want is for marriage to be redefined," Ziser said of same-sex partners. "They will file lawsuits until they are successful."
But foes say that argument is nonsense. They are armed with an opinion from the Legislative Counsel Bureau, which stated that Nevada would not be compelled to recognize Vermont's civil unions as marriages.
Bob Bellis, director of the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Southern Nevada, also said same-sex partners are not attempting to change the state's marriage laws.
"They're trying to make this look like a fight but there is no fight," Bellis said. "We're not trying to get married in the state of Nevada. But I would equate this to 25 years ago when there were laws on the books that outlawed interracial marriage. That was total bigotry. Years later you realize how asinine it was."
Leading up to this election, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage asked candidates to sign a "marriage protection pledge" in which they vowed to support Question 2.
There were 159 candidates who signed the pledge statewide, including Republican congressional candidates Lynette Boggs McDonald and Jon Porter in districts 1 and 3 respectively, Democratic lieutenant governor candidate Erin Kenny, GOP State Treasurer Brian Krolicki, Republican State Controller Kathy Augustine, and attorney general combatants John Hunt, a Democrat, and Brian Sandoval, a Republican.
The pledge encouraged candidates to oppose "any government recognition or endorsement of marriage imitations, including 'domestic partnerships,' 'civil unions,' 'reciprocal beneficiary relationships,' or any similar arrangement that substitutes for the sacred bond of marriage between a man and a woman."
That was a direct response to a failed attempt last year by openly gay Assemblyman David Parks, D-Las Vegas, to have the Nevada Legislature approve "reciprocal beneficiary relationship" benefits for any two adults who are not married, who are in the relationship voluntarily and who do not have such relationships with someone else.
Assembly Bill 496, which died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, would have extended to those couples benefits such as hospital visitations, funeral arrangements, property inheritances and insurance coverage. But Ziser said the coalition objected to the bill based on its belief that the legislation would have jeopardized the definition of a married couple.
Ziser, Robison and Brother Matthew Cunningham, chancellor of the Catholic Diocese of Reno, all said they would consider supporting such reciprocal benefits for same-sex partners as long as the laws were written so as not to broaden the definition of marriage beyond heterosexual couples.
"This doesn't extend only to homosexuals," Cunningham said. "We're talking about a whole range of people who find themselves in situations where benefits are sometimes denied because they're not married. We are struggling with what constitutes a household and who is responsible for whom."
But when Ziser was challenged last month by Question 2 foes and advertising executives Sig Rogich and Billy Vassiliadis to pledge support for proposed hospital visitation legislation, Ziser made no immediate promises.
Ziser said he wanted to concentrate on the election before considering the proposed legislation with help from attorneys. But Bellis said that was a poor excuse.
"It's pretty simple," Bellis said. "He could sit down with lawyers and they could discuss it in an hour."
archive
