Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2009 | 1:01 p.m.
Sun Archives
- Power, luck, finesse bring gay rights win (6-5-2009)
- With veto override, domestic partners bill becomes law (5-31-2009)
- Gibbons' veto of rights for gay couples appears safe (5-28-2009)
- Search is on for votes to beat Gibbons' domestic partner veto (5-27-2009)
- Gibbons vetoes domestic partnerships bill (5-25-2009)
- Committee approves gay rights partnership bill (5-12-2009)
- Assembly panel advances gay discrimination bill (5-1-2009)
- Senate advances bill to give rights to gay couples (4-21-2009)
- Gay rights group requests meeting with Gibbons (4-15-2009)
- Gibbons says he won't sign domestic partners bill (4-14-2009)
- Domestic partnership legislation advances (4-9-2009)
- Bill to extend rights to same-sex couples advances (4-8-2009)
- Bill would give gays same rights as married couples (3-16-2009)
CARSON CITY – Heterosexual or same-sex couples may start filing their applications for registration as domestic partnership beginning Monday.
Secretary of State Ross Miller says he will accept pre-filing from Aug. 24 to Sept. 24 and the certificates will be issued Oct. 1 on the day the law takes effect.
Pam duPre, the information officer for Miller, said there is no estimate on how many domestic partners will sign up. One actuarial estimate is that 2.7 percent of Nevada households are domestic partnerships.
Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas, a key sponsor of the bill that became law, praised Miller “for trying to stay ahead of an unknown quantity” of applications. He looked at other states and estimates that 2,000 in Nevada may file in the first year as domestic partners.
He said Wisconsin enacted a domestic partnership law and 440 couples signed up in the first week. He noted, however, there is a big difference in population between Nevada and Wisconsin.
The domestic partnership is a type of civil contract, says Miller. And a couple will fill out a form that must be notarized and pay $50 to have it filed. A ceremonial certification will be available for an additional $15.
The law was approved by the 2009 Legislature over the veto of Gov. Jim Gibbons. It extends rights similar to those held by married couple. They include community property and debt and the right to seek financial support after a breakup.
The law does not require employers to provide insurance coverage to partners of employees.
Miller said “Oct. 1 will be a historic day. We would like as many couples as possible to be part of it by having their certificates in hand. My office will work hard to make it a special day for them.”
Completed declarations forms may be mailed or dropped off at the Las Vegas or Carson City offices of the secretary of state.
Miller says couples who wait until Oct. 1 to file may not get their certificate that day. It will depend on the number of forms received.
Forms are available under the licensing center at www.nvsos.gov.
Same-sex partners should be allowed to go the full distance and get married. Marriage should be between a pair of consenting adults, so just because one religion has a rule saying that same sex marriage is bad does not mean that the government should enforce that rule. If they do, then it is a violation of church and state and nothing less.
we SHOULD have legal gay marriage in las vegas. think of the boost it would give our local economy in these tough times.
then in about 8 months the divorce lawyers will get money.
everybody wins!
Krases -- you're right, mostly. My only quarrel is with the part about "allowed." They already have the right to marry, always did. The problem is sometime in the 1800s the people bought into the myth the states had the right to license a fundamental liberty, and the legal fiction of needing state permission to marry was born.
This old gal says marriage is a tool of the patriarchy but if the gays want to suffer like the rest of us, let 'em!
I am in favor of preserving the term marriage in the traditional sense for our children.
I have a lot of gay friends, my gay next door neighbors have been best friends for 10 years now. I just don't think there is anything wrong with reserving the word marriage for it's original, biblical, traditional definition.
I want the term marriage to be specific, special, and meaningful for my children.
When government gets involved in non governmental issues, problems will follow. You and I will have to throw money at it in the future! The local government is to supply the services for the citizens. Police and fire, water safety, etc. When decisions involving special interest are made by the state, problems are created. Just watch!
Just think if the USA government did the job described in the constitution. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" and leave the other issues to the states. We would not have the nanny state we have now. If you don't like the states views, just leave and go elsewhere!
Respectfully Henderson,
Was marriage specific, special, and meaningful for Senator Ensign? How about Governor Gibbons? Just how special was that marriage?
Governors Edwards and Sanford...the latter taking off on Father's day to spend with his Argentine mistress? How meaningful was that?
President Clinton's marriage? It seems to be working again. Maybe not. We don't know.
I know you are well intentioned, Henderson. But here's a fact:
Robert and I have been together for 16 years...and on our 10th year, Henderson, we headed north to Canada to marry.
Robert and I believe in relgious freedom, Henderson. We believe that churches should be free to marry or NOT marry whom ever they choose.
What about the Jewish synagogue who would love to build a Jewish gay family, Henderson? Or the Metopolitan Comunity Church? Henderson, as long as the LDS or Catholic churches do not wish to marry couples like Robert and myself, We STROGNLY believe in their right NOT to do so.
And America's courthouses and license bureaus should belong to ALL Americans equally.
Henderson, try to remember we live in a town where two complete strangers from out of town, a man and a woman, can meet at a downtown casino bar, have a few drinks, walk accross the street to the courthouse and marry....and get all the rights and privaleges that come with that responsibility.
And if you google "marriage" and see what the original, biblical and traditional definition WAS...you might be shocked.
We're glad to have you as our neighbor, Henderson. We hope one day you will come to respect our marriage as much as we do yours.
Fondly, your neighbors in our community,
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142
howdydostu,
At least you are not militant about it. That I can respect!
Thank goodness that Senator Reid published that letter where he told a voter that he would vote for Nevada's ban on gay marriage. That probably helped it get passed by a wider margin.
I can see even though that the Dems fully control both chambers of the US Congress that they have not pushed for repeal of DOMA of which Clinton signed and bragged about fighting for America' values by signing DOMA during the 1996 campaign. Clinton is big on protecting the integrity of marriage.
I can see that Obama is pushing hard to change Don't Ask Don't Tell even though he could changed it with just an executive order.
These brave Democrats should be praised for their principle stands against the extreme homosexual agenda.
Repectfully SgtRock,
Though you are correct that Senator Reid has a personal religious belief that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman only, both he, the President, as well as many conservative republicans are steadfastly opposed to a federal constitutional ban.
Take a moment to google: Ted Olson gay marriage.
Ted Olson is a VERY conservative attorney who represented President Bush in the 2000 election dispute: Bush V. Gore. He is teaming with David Boies who represented Gore. On the issue of Bush Vs. Gore they were miles apart. On the issue of my marriage to Robert, Olson and Boies are standing strongly together.
Read about Olson's conservative views and why he has come to believe in marriage equality.
In Canada, where Robert and I were married, their CONSERVATIVE leader has come around to support marriage equality. The same goes in Britain' CONSERVATIVE party, which is strongly in favor, too.
I respect all of your posts, SgtRock, and I hope you take the time to read more about this important issue from real conservatives (like the Goldwater and Reagan style) instead of the talk radio "leaders" we both tune in to. Thanks for reading my post, too!
Respectfully,
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142
That is true that Reid and Obama are oppose to a Federal ban on gay marriage but both man are oppose to gay marriage in general.
Both man believe that it is up to each state to ban or not ban gay marriage.
Reid supported the admenment to Nevada's Constitution to ban gay marriage.
Obama has done nothing to change Ask Don't Tell.
Obama nor the Democratic controll Congress is moving to repeal DOMA which Clinton proudly signed.
These men should praised for fighting against the extreme gay agenda.
Thank you, Reid...Obama...Clinton.
howdydostu,
Sorry to have offended you. You should understand that I am all for equal rights, I'm just saying that I would prefer a world in which my daughter sees marriage as a union between a man and a woman, in which they produce and raise children.
I cannot attest to Ensign or Sanford or anyone else's marriage, but I would hope my children would set higher standards for themselves.
I just don't understand why the term marriage needs to be redefined to mean husband/husband or wife/wife in order for you to be happy when you're already entitled to the same benefits.
Respectfully, SgtRock,
President Clinton did not "proudly" sign DOMA into law....in fact he did it at the midnight hour, and he did it as a matter of political expediancy, 15 years ago.
Two weeks ago President Clinton for the first time came out in favor of gay marriage.
When people sit down and take the time to study the issue, and I did suggest you "google" Ted Olson gay marriage, as I hope many posters will, they can see for themselves the conservative view as to why there should be marriage equality.
SgtRock, Don't Ask Don't Tell was also a law signed by President Clinton which he says he now regrets. He signed it at at time, again 15 years ago, when less than 20% of the American people believed that gay men and woman should serve our free country openly. I know you read a lot. 58% of Americans now favor a repeal...that figure jumps to 78% among 18-21 year olds. And now even a slight majority of conservatives believe in repealing DADT.
I would not expect our President to spend political capitol while he has health care on his plate. We can all see what a difficult task health care reform is. And his is a young presidency (only 6 months, now). There will be plenty of time to take on these important issues.
I thank Reid, Obama, and Clinton for moving America closer towards freedom and equality for all Americans!
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142
Dearest Henderson,
I certainly take no offense!! I always appreciate a good back and forth when it comes to this and other important issues.
We think that the reason that the term "marriage" has become so important is beause alternative titles such as "civil unions" or "Domestic Partnerships" in places where they have already been tested (Vermont, New Jersey, Conecticut, etc.) simply do not do what they were intended to do. Especially where employee benefits are concered.
I'm so heartened that you and many like you have come to believe in equality. Thats a huge step towards progress. But the sad truth is, my casino employer will not recognize my "domestic parnership" just as they don't recognize my legal Canadian marriage. And I have been a 15 year employee who gives one hundred per cent at my job and have been recognized many time for my efforts.
Henderson, "marriage" comes with over 1100 rights and resposibilities, my domestic partnership, though we're glad to have it, does not even come close.
Henderson, Robert and I were legally married in Canada on July 27th 2004, and, truth be told, if you and I passed each other on the street, you wouldn't even know it.
Politicians, as you know, have used good folks like Robert and myself to garner votes, leaving their own marriages in shambles. We're all human, and we all fall short in the eyes of G-d. I don't judge them, but I have expectations as an American that we should all be treated equally under the law...and you should know that when Canada passed marriage equality, they smartly used U.S. law as their guide! They cited Brown Vs. The Board of Education to highlight that "seperate but equal" is not what a real democratic society should aspire to.
And as your daughter grows up to be a young lady she will be proud that it was American law that set the standard for other countries when it comes to repecting the human rights and dignity for all people no matter what shoes G-d gave them to walk in!
Respectfully,
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142
Bert and Ernie will be thrilled.
Stuart & Robert -- beware those who say they are in favor of gay couples being equal, but it seems to always come down to just so you don't want to be as equal as them.
Nevada spoke on this issue with that corrupting amendment to its Constitution. Which means you have to fight for your liberties to be recognized.
There are ways to equalize your situation. You can start by creating your marriage-like estate with trusts, one of the few private, fundamental rights still preserved in the common law. Keep it separate from your wills, which is all most attorneys know. That buys you a one way ticket to probate hell. Check it out at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...
Thanks KillerB,
I was a participant in vaccine study which gave me access to legal work done pro bono...my concern was that any of our paperwork was always subject to challenge in court.
Thanks for the info...just another reason why domestic partnershps is only a stepping stone to true equality.
Thanks again,
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, 89142
Clinton was very proud of signing DOMA.
Clinton ran ads in 1996 boasting of him signing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and in those ads it says "President Clinton has fought for our values and America is better for it."
Thank Goodness that Clinton fought for our values and America is better for it.
Thanks Bill, you are an expert on marriage.
The biggest thanks should be given to Reid.
When he put out that letter where he told a voter that he was always against gay marriage and fully supports the Nevada Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage that helped many Nevadans to vote for the ban.
Thanks Reid.
This is long overdue. Dump the religous pinheads. I seriously doubt that the fabric of our society is going to be challenged because people are love.
Hendo,
The original, biblical, traditional definition of marriage was incredibly misogynistic -- the man bought the woman from her father and owned her, no chance of divorce, women and subservient to men, etc. I can't believe that you'd want that for your children. Very shocking!
And that's just the marriage itself, don't get me started on the ceremony. I can't believe that you'd want your daughter to consummate the wedding on site and for your new son-in-law to prove that she was a virgin by holding up the bloody white sheet. You're sick, man.
jack,
You are again misinformed. I'm not here to quote scripture, so I'm going to briefly clarify. The scenario you are speaking of is in the Old Testament and it refers to a man who takes a virgin wife, then decides he hates her, speaks badly of her, or claims she was not a virgin. At that point her parents take the evidence of her virginity to the elders, who then chastise the husband.
The Bible tells us that men are supposed to be the leaders of the family unit, however they are also required to respect their wives and love them as they love themselves.
"In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church"
My opinion is just that, people now have the same freedoms to be with who they want,and the same privileges and benefits afforded to married couples. That's a wonderful thing. I'm not here to say I want to force religion on anyone or take away anyone's freedom to be with the one they love. I'm only sayiing it is my preference to keep the traditional meaning of marriage between a man and a woman.
I know you like to keep beating the same drum, so I'm just letting you know I am not debating scripture with you here. I have said my peace on this thread.
Big celebration tonight at the Eagle, off of Tropicana. It's underwear night, and we expect 400 guys. Get there early, or it might be hard to find a parking spot. This is sooo exciting...
Domestic Partners are fine. I voted twice for the State Constitution Amendment for Marriage only between one man and one woman. Just hope they gain the full legal and insurance rights with Domestic Partnership next go-around. Would like to also see the first case of someone in a marriage also taking out a domestic partnership with someone else. Would that be considered Bigamy?
vegasvampire,
Good question.
The domestic partnership issue brings up a lot of questions. If an illegal alien joins a domestic partnership, will they be eligible to stay here? If you dissolve a domestic partnership can you be sued for support? If you are in a domestic partnership can you be liable for your partners debts?
I mean, if you get all of the benefits of marriage, should you not also expect to take on the negatives?