Coalition against gay marriage reorganizes

Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2003 | 11:08 a.m.

The Nevada coalition that helped pass a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman announced plans Monday to reactivate the group in response to the issue's continued presence in national politics.

A statement Monday by new Chairman William Stoddard claimed the revival of the Nevada Coalition for the Protection of Marriage was in response to a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that made laws banning gay marriage unconstitutional.

"Same-sex marriage activists are already looking for ways to tear down what Question 2 accomplished," Stoddard, an attorney and a high-ranking official in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in the statement.

"We don't intend to let that happen in Nevada. If activists pursue their course to the U.S. Supreme Court to force recognition of same-sex marriage, congressional action may be necessary," he said. "That could take the form of a bill to remove marriage from court jurisdiction, or even a federal marriage protection amendment. We intend to review and pursue all options necessary to protect marriage and family in Nevada."

If the same-sex marriage issue emerges at the national level, then there is a role for Nevada's coalition, Stoddard said.

For now the coalition is not pursuing any particular course of action, Stoddard said.

"We are really not taking a position on anything," he said. "We don't have an agenda. We're just keeping our eyes and ears open right now."

Question 2 foes, however, believe the group's reactivation is merely a political maneuver to gather support for the upcoming elections. The coalition's former chairman, Republican Richard Ziser, is running against Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., in 2004.

"I expect they are trying to keep a list alive of people who supported Question 2, which may lead to political fallout in their favor," said political consultant Sig Rogich, of Rogich Communications, who opposed Question 2.

Consultant Billy Vassiliadis, owner of R&R Partners, which also worked against the ballot initiative, agreed.

"It can't be to protect marriage," Vassiliadis said when told of the coalition's reactivation. "Not that it can't be, but that it wouldn't make sense to me. ... I gotta believe that they are just gearing up for the political system."

He said he was surprised, however, that the group hadn't before maintained a higher political presence to support other conservative issues.

There is currently no known movement in Nevada to recall the amendment, Vassiliadis said, and so the only thing that could revoke the law is if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled states have to recognize gay marriages.

That is just what the coalition is trying to prevent, Ziser said.

Ziser said he would prefer for Congress to simply take the issue away from the courts.

"But it's unlikely that Congress will go that way, so we'll have to go the route of the amendment," Ziser said.

A constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman has already been introduced in the Senate, Ziser said.

If the amendment passes through Congress, the Nevada coalition will need to make sure there is a two-thirds majority in the state Legislature to help ratify the amendment.

"It is already in place so (Congress is) not going to be able to avoid it," Ziser said. "There are going to be hearings on it, they are going to have to discuss it. It is going to be an issue nationwide and going to be an issue in this campaign."

Both Rogich and Vassiliadis said they thought it was highly doubtful a constitutional amendment would ever make it out of Congress.

"Constitutional amendments are always fun to talk about but they are very hard to make happen, and hence they rarely happen," Rogich said. "That's too long down the road for me to think about."

In affirming gay marriages, the Massachusetts Supreme Court gave the state's Legislature until mid-May to rewrite marriage laws to provide benefits for gay couples. Conservatives have called the ruling "judicial tyranny" and have vowed to make it an issue in the 2004 elections. Gay rights activists, however, hope the ruling will lead to a ripple effect of similar decisions in other states.

Sun reporter

Mary Manning contributed to this story.

archive