Friday, Oct. 25, 2002 | 5:01 a.m.
ONE THING that makes America the greatest country in the world is that we have learned to evolve from past errors and continue to build a nation that decries segregation.
That is, most of America feels that way.
But Richard Ziser and some proponents of Question 2 still apparently believe certain people are better than others. It's not about the ballot question, it's about bigotry and the future hammer the Nov. 5 vote will have on the Legislature.
Last week in a televised debate on "Face to Face With Jon Ralston," Ziser said that children should not be shown examples of nontraditional families in schools because the only "proper way to raise a child" is by a man and a woman.
Ziser and most Nevadans may believe a "natural" marriage, as he puts it, is between a man and woman. But just as dolls and Fisher Price toys now acknowledge other races and people with disabilities, so too, should Nevadans realize that 75 percent of families are not the Cleaver model.
Putting Question 2 -- already a state law -- into the state constitution will only make it harder to recognize current fact.
Almost every family I know has examples of what Ziser believes is unnatural. Real-life issues such as divorce, death, adoption and jail time mar the traditional model. In many families, grandparents have a second stint at raising kids.
Across the country, thousands of gay couples are adopting foster children to shower them with the love an agency cannot supply.
America has evolved from its past days of segregated schools, barring women from voting and forcing the disabled to maneuver curbs and stairs. The burgeoning recognition that families come in different styles is part of the continued evolution.
Still Ziser clings fast.
"There are some that don't believe evolution is a movement toward maturity," Ziser said.
Make no mistake about it, Question 2 is not about protecting marriage. It is about creating a culture of discrimination where people like Ziser can point to the will of the public (in its support of Question 2) to block continued social evolution.
He's already done it once. During the 2001 Legislature, Ziser and other members of the Coalition to Protect Marriage, scared lawmakers into killing a bill that would have granted hospital visitation rights for domestic partners.
Ziser reminded a legislative committee that 69 percent of Nevadans supported Question 2 in 2000, and he extrapolated that support to mean voters opposed rights for domestic partners.
The reality in Nevada isn't pretty.
Stephanie Washington watched as her partner, Kelly Woods, got seriously injured playing basketball in a Las Vegas community center. Woods was taken by ambulance to the hospital while Washington raced ahead in her car.
"I got to the hospital and was waiting for the ambulance to come," Washington said.
Woods was taken into the back, and Washington asked to go see her. The clerk said no, but also went back to check with the nurse. The nurse also said no.
"So the clerk comes back to me and says, 'Say you're her sister,' " Washington said. "I wasn't going to lie."
The Coalition for the Protection of Marriage made it very clear this year where it really stands when it asked candidates for office to sign a pledge supporting the "spirit of Question 2."
Here's what all those candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike, signed off on:
"I believe that awarding spousal equivalent rights to nonmarried couples defeats the civil purpose of marriage. I recognize that the various domestic partnership, civil union or reciprocal beneficiary relationship benefits belong exclusively to marriage or can be obtained by responsible people through inexpensive legal contracts and other private arrangements."
What contracts? What private arrangements? Telling the admitting clerk it's your brother who's back there in intensive care?
Political consultants Billy Vassiliadis and Sig Rogich, both Question 2 opponents, wrote to Ziser last week asking him to endorse their proposal for hospital visitation rights legislation.
If Ziser and his herd of homophobic sheep don't want to be seen as bigots, they would support a law allowing someone to designate someone as a member of their family in order to afford that person visitation privileges.
For now, Ziser says he thinks such a proposal would be "interference on hospitals." He also said his coalition would have to "study it and have attorneys parse the words."
The proposal states: "I,----, do hereby designate ----, as a member of my family, as defined by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organziations. I hereby instruct all medical facility staff to admit ---- to my room and afford him/her such visitation privileges as are allowed to my family members during my time as a patient."
That would have allowed Stephanie to visit Kelly and would allow hundreds of widows and widowers engaged in new friendships to have loved ones at their side during trying times.
But Ziser only wants protections for relationships like his and will absolutely use the "spirit of Question 2" to discriminate against others.
Voting for that initiative will only give him more power in his quest to bar rights for others. And that's not the American way.
archive
