Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
By J. Patrick Coolican (contact) 
Friday, June 5, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Sen. Dennis Nolan
Sun Archives
- With veto override, domestic partners bill becomes law (5-31-09)
- 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)
Cashing In? seg. 4
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
Las Vegas hopes to cash in on President Barack Obama's visit. Jon talks with Harrah's Entertainment executive and former Las Vegas Mayor Jan Jones and conservative activist Chuck Muth about Obama's appearances and more.
Domestic Partner Benefits
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
The biggest names in gaming call on lawmakers to override the governor's veto of domestic partner benefits. In Business talks with Harrah's Entertainment executive and former Las Vegas Mayor Jan Jones about the effort.
Sun Coverage
Related Document (.pdf)
If you want to know how things get done at the Legislature, ask state Sen. Dennis Nolan.
The Las Vegas Republican cast the deciding vote to override a veto of Gov. Jim Gibbons, giving a fairly stunning victory to a drive to extend domestic partnership rights for gay and straight unmarried couples.
They can now pursue the same rights as married couples.
Nolan had been the subject of intense lobbying campaigns by both sides. Legislators and lobbyists say the outcome provides lessons in how to win at the Nevada Legislature:
• Get gaming on board.
• Have the good fortune to face tone-deaf opposition.
• Do the nuts-and-bolts groundwork.
From the top: The broad coalition of liberal interest groups said the tourism industry, and Harrah’s Entertainment in particular, was immensely helpful in the end.
“Things began to change significantly in a two-week period when it became front and center for a lot of people,” said Democratic state Sen. David Parks of Las Vegas, the bill’s sponsor.
“I’d always had support from Harrah’s, but I think between Jan Jones and Marybel Batjer, they really started helping to move things along,” Parks said, referring to Harrah’s lobbyists. Jones is a former mayor of Las Vegas.
Another lobbyist was more blunt: Harrah’s told Nolan it needed his vote.
“From a personal standpoint our leadership thought this was the right thing to do,” Jones said. “From a tourism perspective, we do a lot of marketing to the gay, lesbian and transgender market, and how effective would it be to say, ‘Give us your money, but we don’t believe in your rights’ ?”
Given the deep recession on the Strip, the industry could not afford a boycott or even the bad press associated with a failure of Nevada to live up to its reputation for live-and-let-live, she said.
It wasn’t just Harrah’s. Two of the state’s most important gaming lobbyists, Billy Vassiliadis and Pete Ernaut, were also important advocates.
“What helped Nolan a lot, I think, is that a lot of mainstream business folks stepped up, came out, came up, helped out,” Vassiliadis said, referring to Jones, as well as lobbyists from Wynn Resorts and MGM Mirage.
Some were committed to the issue as a cause, others were speaking on behalf of their employees, and all wanted to send a message to the substantial gay and lesbian tourist market: Nevada is inclusive.
That was the exact opposite of the message of the bill’s opponents — a message that was met with hostility from many who heard it.
“We owe a small debt of gratitude to the opponents,” said Michael Ginsburg, a central player on the legislation for the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, known as PLAN.
“They launched a campaign against (Nolan) with horrible, nasty messages, and I think that strengthened his resolve to vote for it,” Ginsburg said.
Nolan noted the nastiness in his floor speech announcing that he was changing his vote and would vote to override the governor’s veto.
For the bill’s opponents, Gibbons was not much help either. The governor, who has become isolated from fellow Republicans in the Legislature, had very little leverage to lobby to sustain his veto.
And ultimately, Nolan found Gibbons’ veto message unpersuasive. Gibbons claimed the drive for domestic partnerships was an end-run around a voter-approved constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage.
Nolan said when he reexamined the debate over the marriage amendment, he noted that advocates specifically said they were not seeking to limit the creation of domestic partnerships or civil unions.
The bill lawmakers approved explicitly stated that the domestic partnership arrangement was not marriage. That language, which gave Republicans some cover, brings up the last point: Parks and the coalition behind him were remarkably savvy and disciplined, according to veteran lobbyists and legislators.
“He crafted the perfect bill and the message was built around it,” said James Wadhams, a Jones Vargas lobbyist with decades of experience in the Legislature. “This is not marriage. This is about domestic partnerships.
“It was probably, in the whole scheme of things, if you take your eye off budget and taxes, the play of the session,” he said.
Getting legislation passed is not rocketry. “Political Activism 101,” said Launce Rake, a PLAN spokesman.
Write a bill that upends objections. Get leadership on board. Build a coalition both inside and outside the building. Work the media. Take nothing for granted.
Parks told Majority Leader Steven Horsford he would be introducing it, so as not to blindside him with a controversial issue.
“He looked at me, smiled and said, ‘Go for it,’ ” Parks recalled.
Parks had a strong coalition behind him, including the ACLU of Nevada, PLAN, the Gay & Lesbian Community Center of Southern Nevada, the Human Rights Campaign and a host of other allies. Weekly and later daily conference calls helped them coordinate and plot strategy.
The Legislature’s Web site, which allows Nevadans to give their opinions on issues, was flooded with pro-domestic-partnership votes.
The day of the first Senate vote, many activists were in the halls of the Legislature for “Equality Days.” Parks said he had never seen such prepared citizen activists. They knew who their legislators were, had the talking points in hand and were respectful, he said.
Once the veto came and supporters needed two votes to override, Parks made a smart move: He told the activists to back off, knowing how much pressure Nolan was getting.
Parks supported Nolan’s pet cause: Making failure to wear a seat belt a primary offense. Nolan’s bill passed the Senate with help from Democrats.
During a legislative session that saw both painful tax increases and budget cuts, advocates of domestic partnerships said the victory renewed their faith in the process.
“I’ve never seen so many people from so many walks of life come together,” Vassiliadis said.
Great article demonstrating the power of true leadership that brought about one of the finest moments in Nevada's tumultuous equal rights history. We hope the misconceptions that Nevada is the Mississippi of the West will be laid to rest once and for all. I am a proud Nevadan who participated in a great moment in time...
HERE'S A SUGGESTION FOR HARRAH'S AND JAN JONES: Support POLYGAMISTS as these groups have large families and visits from such "families" would fill the empty rooms at the Harrah's properties quickly. Yeah, Harrah's should support and start marketing to polygamists because that's even a greater group in number than the gays and lesbians in America. And many polygamists don't live too far from Las Vegas either but in neighboring states, ... wouldn't that be a great revenue source?
Next thing: Harrah's should start to support and begin marketing to child molesters and other sick perverts, ... that's yet another large group and in number greater than the gay and lesbian community. So Harrah's go ahead and enhance the Sodom and Gomorrah mentality and marketing, ... it's all about the buck anyway. No restrictions apply.
BTW, here's another great marketing idea for Jan Jones and Harrah's: let's begin marketing to the U.S. prison population which is a couple million or so and matches the number of the gay and lesbian population in the U.S., so whenever the criminals get out, they stand ready with coupons and specials in hand to visit Harrah's properties in Las Vegas. Isn't that a great idea?
And the list could go on and on. Gee, great job Harrah's, ... just trying to stay afloat I guess, ... and anything goes.
P.S. The only problem is that the majority of straight people will stay away from your properties just as it happened in Disney World since they started the gay days there. Sure sounds like great business sense when someone caters to 1% of a random population and disregards the wishes of 99% of their client base. But that's how businesses go down the tubes pretty fast, ... I guess we'll see.
Harrah's and of course former City of Las Vegas Mayor Jan Jones showed great leadership in supporting SB283 Domestic Partnerships. We celebrate progressive organizations that look towards a bright future that is inclusive of all groups.
The LGBT community has helped foster the preservation of our historic neighborhoods Downtown, grow the cultural arts, have been active members in the philharmonic, the ballet, museums and a multitude of organizations that assist in enriching the lives of all Nevadans.
Las Vegas and our state is progressing beautifully thanks to all who look at the world in a positive light of equality and justice for all.
"Las Vegas and our state is progressing beautifully thanks to all who look at the world in a positive light of equality and justice for all."
That's right. This "AWESOME WIN" is not enough. Now, it's time to force a church to perform a domestic partnership ceremony. After all gay/lesbians had the same rights before hand. (Property inheritance? Form a LLC for the partnership. Right to medical records? Sign an advance medical directive. Power to make decisions for the loved one? Power of Attorney.)
Yeppers, gay and lesbian couples ALREADY HAD the same rights. However they are still missing one now. NOW THEY MUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE THOSE EVIL CHURCHES TO PERFORM THE DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP CEREMONY!!! If those evil religious freaks don't then the gay and lesbian community should sue them for discrimination! If those evil religious wingnuts refuse, then they should lose the ability to marry anyone. Right? (Within 10 years we will see an actual case where a church is sued for not performing a domestic partnership ceremony.)
Now, I really don't have a dog in this hunt. I haven't been inside a church in 20 years, nor have I ever been (nor likely to ever be) married. What torques me off is the rights were already available. Part of the philosophy of law is to allow the most with the least impact. The least impact would have been for the gay/lesbian community to already use the laws in place. And even though I am not a church goer, I do see the scenario I have outlined above. Within 10 years a church will be forced to "marry" er domestic partnership some couple. (But but but... that is not what the gay/lesbian community is asking for... Not yet.)
Cannon-
You can't be any further from the truth. Look at the language of the bill, for goodness sake! There's no religious mandate whatsoever. Domestic partners can do a wedding... Or they don't have to. Churches can perform gay weddings... Or they don't have to. Churches have always had the freedom to religiously marry whoever they want, and that hasn't changed with SB 283 just as it won't change when this state eventually has civil marriage equality.
And btw, there was NOT equal access to the same "rights" before SB 283. Gay & lesbian couples currently have to pay upwards of $5,000 in legal fees for such basic rights as community property and power of attorney that hetero married couples take for granted (and are given with an affordable marriage license). And contrary to popular mythology, <a href="http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/pdf/LGBPovertyReport.pdf">a number of LGBT families face real poverty</a>. While SB 283 doesn't yet provide full equality, it does a good deal to make life easier for our community.
Atdleft-
You are correct that SB283 doesn't provide a religious mandate. However, using the same argument, domestic partnerships are not equal to church marriages. The next battleground will be that. Force those evil religious freaks to acknowledge your rights or remove their ability to conduct marriages.
As far at $5,000, that is quite a bit overstated. Various website (as an example) offer simple power of attorney forms and LLC forms for about the twice the cost of a marriage license (here in Clark county the marriage license is $60.) Let's see at one website we hear advertised (oh, my bad, you wouldn't have heard it advertised because it is advertised on that EVIL RETHUGIAN TALK RADIO) a simple LLC is $139. A power of attorney is $35. A will, which isn't necessary because of the LLC, but a good idea anyway, is $89.
Let's see, 139 + 35 + 89 = $263. Hmmmm I guess that the extra $200 (or about $110 without the will) is just suuuuuch an undue burden "for the forever lifepartner love of my life domestic partner."
The law should be about providing the "mostest" with the "leastest" change. There were already equality provisions; therefore, it is a bad legislative process to change the law.
SB 283 is a positive step forward, but it is, to quote Winston Churchill, "Not the end, or the beginning of the end, but it is rather the end of the beginning." Thanks to Sen. Parks and Speaker Buckley's decision to abandon the transgender community (despite their explicit commitments made prior to the session to do otherwise) with regard to the employment discrimination bill (which Buckley prevented the Assm. Commerce & Labor Committee from voting on) and the public accomodations bill (which doesn't protect transgender persons--who were the group most at risk) it's hard for me to get excited about domestic partnerships. If--as is true under current law--it's legal for every business in the state to refuse to serve me or hire me, my alleged ability to enter into a not-quite-marriage doesn't curl my toes.
Cannon's resorting to scare tactics, rather than reading the text of the actual bill.
"The provisions of this chapter do not require the performance of any solemnization ceremony to enter into a binding domestic partnership contract. It is left to the dictates and conscience of partners entering into a domestic partnership to determine whether to seek a ceremony or blessing over the domestic partnership and to the dictates of each religious faith to determine whether to offer or allow a ceremony or blessing of domestic partnerships. Providing recognition to partnerships through a domestic partnership system in no way interferes with the right of each religious faith to choose freely to whom to grant the religious status, sacrament or blessing of marriage under the rules or practices of that faith."
No religious entity will be forced to bless a domestic partnership. Cannon is wrong.
"The Las Vegas Republican cast the deciding vote to override a veto of Gov. Jim Gibbons, giving a fairly stunning victory to a drive to extend domestic partnership rights for gay and straight unmarried couples."
It would be much more accurate and fair to just say "recognize domestic partnership rights for all unmarried couples." The reality of this century's social fabric is sexual choice is part of the weave and, being sui juris (legally competent to be vested with all common rights), are entitled to enjoy equality.
scherf -- although you are mostly irrelevant, I think you hit on the polygamist point by accident.
Polygamy is like any other type of marriage, why is it outlawed? If duos want to become trios, and so on, as long as all involved consent, government has zero business intervening. Because sometime in the 19th century We the People allowed government to perpetuate the myth it can license a liberty -- permission needed to legitimize, rather than just solemnize, one's most important intimate commitment in the pursuit of happiness -- we now live with that liberty-chilling result.
Why you made the leap from families to child molesters shows what a buffoon you really are and not worth any respect whatsoever.
Cannon_A -- "Property inheritance? Form a LLC for the partnership." You almost got it right. Form a trust, not an LLC. And not with an attorney -- get a NOLO guide, then study up on Bogert. They've been a good vehicle for 500 years, as the ultra-rich can tell you.
LVLawyerGal -- you hit that nail right on its head.
Actually the bill is from old law, called common law, I was born and raised in Vegas, we had the same law years ago, then it was changed, and now it is back to what it used to be. Common Law Marriage......
Ah, yes, the plan is working to perfection. Soon we shall storm the churches, which will be all the more easy given that we've already infiltrated them with our minions, who have risen to priesthood.
Before long, the "tolerance" education we've espoused will morph into the brainwashing we have plotted all along. The children will CHOOSE to be gay, because, after all, it IS a choice. Just as some chose to be straight.
From there, it will be just a short while before every union head, every legislator, the president of this country and the czar of all the Russias will all be gay!
At least, that's how the minutes read from the the last meeting of the Gay Agenda held in the dark recesses of an adobe cave in Pueblo, Colo.
Muahahahahahahahahahaha!
KillerB-
Yep, yep, yep. Perhaps folks like Cannon need to talk to people who've actually tried to navigate those complicated legal maneuvers before opening their mouths and looking like idiots. I have friends in CA who filed all that paperwork before DPs became available. They had to pay thousands of dollars to accomplish what one simple form from the CA SoS can do now.
LVLawyerGal-
How very true. Separate isn't equal, no matter how "appealing" it's made. Yes, and I'm still irked that trans people were sold out. When will we finally stop treating them as an afterthought?
Isn't it odd how those who fear a "religious mandate" don't seem to see that that was exactly what the constitutional prohibition against gay marriage in the Nevada constitution was.
The idea that marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman is a religious concept shoved down our throats, if you'll pardon the expression, by religious autocrats who want to foist their religious beliefs onto everyone else.
I can only write from my heart that what I know to be true. Robert and I would never have choosen our gayness. Who would choose something that until fairly recently has been so frowned upon by society as a whole?
And as the coversation about marriage equaity, civil unions and domestic partnerships goes foward, we see hearts and minds slowly changing.
Fair minded legislators, civic and corporate leaders have begun picking up the pieces of debris left behind from campaigns which have divided us...campaigns which became a cash cow for people who pandered for votes, using fear as a way to line their pockets.
Governor Gibbons is a role model for the sanctity of marriage? Richard Ziser is a moral leader? When he bankrolled "question 2" by going on talk radio saying all he wanted to do was "protect marriage" he made it seem as if civil unions or domstic partnerships was a possbility. How many voters supported "question 2" thinking that all they were doing was protectiong the "traditional meaning of marriage" yet wanted to see your gay family members, neghbors and co-workers still find some measure of equality under the law? If this recent debate in this legislative session doesn't prove to you how disingenuous these people have been...nothing will.
As I have stated in previous posts, Robert and I feel strongly that our churches should be free to make their own choices about marriage. But, the courthouses belong to ALL Americans.
I wish for every partnered couple the joy, companionship and happiness that Robert and I have found in our lives.
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142
atdleft -- sure, fill out a form and do it their way. Then find yourself under the thumb of a whole lot of laws they didn't tell you about. Attorneys tend to be both expensive and incompetent, and never forget they're officers of the courts. Trusts on the other hand are what each of us forgot we have the right to do. All it takes is some careful research (Bogert highly recommended) applied.
Nevada_Scandal -- how right you are.
"After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands." -- Friedrich Nietzsche, "Ecce Homo - Why I Am a Destiny" (1888) (found, copied and pasted from http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quot...)
Wake up Nevada bigots! We're in the 21st century, gays are human too.. time to start treating with dignity and respect!
When the anti-gay amendment was passed twice, pushed by Ziser and the morning hate-talk radio beardo, where was this grand coalition?
It's too bad that repressed homosexuals like "scherf.com" have internalized their homophobia to such an extent that they convince themselves of outrageous untruths. A REAL straight man couldn't care less what the gay couple done the street are doing. A man who goes on about gays is surely a man who's repressed homosexual himself. As far as the matter of gay marriage, I always ask WWJD, and of course, he would be in favor of it.
"Cannon's resorting to scare tactics, rather than reading the text of the actual bill."
Nope, ksand, I am not resorting to scare tactics, I am just following the natural line of thought. Just take a look at the "gay marriage" debate over the past 10 years. 10 years ago, domestic partnerships were the pinnacle of what gay rights activist were asking for. Now it is marriage. After all things won't be equal until gay couples can say they are "married". Now 10 years from now things won't be equal until they can get married in a church. How is that fear mongering? It is the natural progression of "rights."
Hmmm your quick denial of this line of thought shows that you are perhaps a biggot who is ok with "those gays" getting a domestic partnership but are uncomfortable with the concept of them getting married in a church. After all it is not in the SB right now and anyone who says it possible is using "scare tactics" so it will never happen and you can breath easier. Man ksand, you are such a homophobe!
---
Ummm KillerB - A LLC hold property within the LLC (well assuming property was assigned to the LLC) corporations don't automatically dissolve when one of the members of the LLC dies, unless they were set up that way in the beginning, so property stays with the LLC. Even if the LLC does dissolve (umm the same as divorce/death) then there is a division of common assets (ummm the same as divorce/death). Hmmm kinda sounds like inheritance to me.
Or form a trust, whichever fits your specific needs for the partnership.
KillerB, just because your friend spent thousands doesn't mean that thousands are required. Hmmmm I bet if your friend spent the same amount of time researching (the benefits of a trust vs LLC) as couples spend planning their wedding then the costs would have been a lot lower because believe it or not a lot of things that people think "require" a lawyer, don't.
CannonA -- your point about LLCs in this context is useful, if one is more interested in forms than other options. Mine is that government at every level has shown a definite reluctance to perform its fundamental purpose -- promote equality and protect the rights of minorities -- so why should it be trusted? An LLC, like all corporations, is a creature of government and has no options except what government gives it. Trusts do not have those limitations and you can literally write most of your own law into them. It's all in where authority to create the entity comes from.
"KillerB, just because your friend spent thousands doesn't mean that thousands are required." -- where did you get that from?
"...a lot of things that people think "require" a lawyer, don't." -- you are so right on this.
Sorry, Cannon, your argument is what is commonly known as a slippery slope logical fallacy. Legislating religious marriages is neither a "natural extension" of the argument for marriage equality, nor inevitable. In fact the argument for marriage equality, that LGBT should have the same right to marriage as straight couples PRECLUDES such a right to religious marriage, as their is no such right given to straight couples.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.htm...
Your entire scare tactic argument is based on faulty reasoning. Surprise, surprise!
""KillerB, just because your friend spent thousands doesn't mean that thousands are required." -- where did you get that from?"
Ummm oopps that should have been attributed to atdleft at 6/5/09 at 4:06 p.m. He was responding to you and I took the name from the top of the comments, my bad.
Atdleft, just because your friend spent thousands to create a corp does not mean they needed to.
---
"Legislating religious marriages is neither a "natural extension" of the argument for marriage equality, nor inevitable. In fact the argument for marriage equality, that LGBT should have the same right to marriage as straight couples PRECLUDES such a right to religious marriage, as their is no such right given to straight couples."
Ksand, that is where you are wrong. This whole process has been a slippery slope. The argument will be now that 6 states allow it, the next state has to allow it. Now that 7 allow it, the 8th has to ... and so on. *THAT* is part of the slippery slope.
As far as legislating religious ceremonies, it is going to be the opposite. If churches refuse to perform a gay wedding they will lose via legislation the ability to perform legal marriages. After all you are correct in that there is no right given to straight couples, after all they can be married by a justice of the peace (or elvis, or whomever.) Since there is no right to a religious marriage, churches could very easily lose the ability to conduct any marriages, if they don't marry gays.
Not a scare tactic, just following the logic to its conclusion.
As long as you feel secure using an inductive fallacy to support your position, I'm sure you won't mind everyone else laughing at you.
"As far as legislating religious ceremonies, it is going to be the opposite. If churches refuse to perform a gay wedding they will lose via legislation the ability to perform legal marriages. After all you are correct in that there is no right given to straight couples, after all they can be married by a justice of the peace (or elvis, or whomever.) Since there is no right to a religious marriage, churches could very easily lose the ability to conduct any marriages, if they don't marry gays."
Every single state that has legalized either marriage equality or civil unions/DPs have built in additional religious protections. Every. Single. One.
"Since there is no right to a religious marriage, churches could very easily lose the ability to conduct any marriages, if they don't marry gays."
Based on what, exactly? All current antidiscrimination legislation forgives churches of their religious views. All. Current. Legislation.
You're basing your argument on both a logical fallacy and your keen insight using your crystal ball. The premise of your argument is faulty and foolish.
Killer & ksand-
Thanks for being voices of reason and trying to reason with Cannon. Whatever. He's obviously never spoken with anyone who's tried to navigate the legal system before DPs (domestic partnerships) were created in California, Oregon, and Washington. It was expensive to "couple" before DPs, and even today they're still not really protected or respected with DPs. He's also never studied recent history in Massachusetts and Connecticut, where churches are still free to marry whichever couples they choose. Again, we're talking about civil marriage... NOT religious marriage.
*sigh*
Ksand, your right. Ever. Single. Current. Law. Has. Those. Protections. Laws starting in 10 years will not. (Of course not every state will change at the 10 year mark, that will be the start of the process.) Laws change. (After all how the hell did a "right to privacy" appear in the Constitution? (as an example.))
Will you at least acknowledge that 10 years ago the best gay rights proponents could hope for was somewhere domestic partnerships would be allowed. Hawaii was the first I believe, then Mass. Now people are going state by state with the argument, "Now six states have marriage or some type of partnership so it is time for this state to have it." At a certain tipping point all states will have it. That is one slippery slope.
Once all states have it, then someone will state we want to get married in a church, after all we are not equal until we can do that. Someone, somewhere (probably out here in the 9th appellate district) will have a bunch of wise guys/gals in black robe agree.
You should support gay marriage in a church as equality. I am saying that is a logical conclusion. You are calling it scare mongering.
Cannon asserts "10 years ago the best gay rights proponents could hope for was somewhere domestic partnerships would be allowed."
Uh, no. The case challenging Hawaii's laws forbidding same-sex marriage started in 1993, sixteen years ago; this was considered so strong a legal challenge that it scared the anti-marriage forces into passing DOMA in 1996, thirteen years ago. In short, it's well documented that same-sex marriage has been a realistic goal in the US since at least the early nineties, and many of us have been working towards that goal for longer than that.
Meanwhile, in all that time I'm unaware of ANY significant effort to force churches to perform marriages of same-sex couples. It's been over 40 years since Loving v. Virginia, and there are still churches that won't perform interracial marriages. Have you heard of any of them being successfully sued for this? I haven't.
Hmmm alanj I haven't but when was the last time you heard of an interracial couple suing to get married? Interracial couples have a wide variety of churches to get married in; right now gay couples don't have any.
Each of you decrying my comments as "scare tactics" are underestimating the perception of equality. The flood doors have opened and will not be closed until gay couples have that perceived equality. If they can't achieve it by having a religious ceremony which is legally binding, they will work toward making sure that no one else does.
Again, I ask, why are they "scare tactics"? Do you not believe in the logical conclusion that if there is gay marriage they have the right to get married wherever they want? To prevent them from doing so is prima facia discrimination.
My bet is that the first challenge will be in California. It will be after Prop 8 is overturned in 2012. (Gay marriage forces are still shocked/disorganized as a result of what they felt was sure to be a judicial remedy - it will take them an election cycle to overcome that.) Call the first challenge occurring in 2015.
Also alanj, the 1998 Hawaii vote is what I was talking about. The reason I remember that time specifically is a group of Log Cabin Republicans (yes, Republicans have gay supporters too) made a presentation to the Illinois State YRs. I remember asking them about how the "full faith and credit" clause would affect other states if Hawaii passed its domestic partnership. They didn't have an answer; they probably were worried about the perceived (which as we can see over the past 10 years has turned into an actual) slippery slope.
As a result of the 1998 Hawaiian vote the first state Defense of Marriage Act (if you want to call it that) was passed by the state legislature. The best that the vast majority of what today are gay marriage supporters could then hope for was some type of domestic partnership. That was the status quo until they were able to have one liberal northeast state pass a gay marriage law (and even then the law was specific that it was valid for state residents only. People could not come in from out of state; thus avoiding a full faith and credit issue.)
Yet again, you rely not on actual events, but forecast future events using your crystal ball. Faulty and foolish, again.
"Interracial couples have a wide variety of churches to get married in; right now gay couples don't have any."
Patently false. There are a growing group of churches that recognize and celebrate gay marriage. Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ, the Ecumenical Catholic Church, Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and liberal Quakers, among others. Furthermore, there are clergy who will officiate at gay marriages, as well. Another of your arguments, completely debunked.
As alanj correctly points out, Loving v. Virginia, according to people arguing from your current position, would have DECLARED that interracial marriages would be fighting for the right to be married in a church. It hasn't happened. That's your entire line of arugment, debunked. After all, it was a "natural conclusion of the argument." 40 years later, your rhetoric hasn't panned out. Why? Because it's simply illogical.
And finally, if religious liberty is your litmus test, of course you're in support of gay marriage. There are churches today who want the ability to marry GLBT individuals, but state laws currently prevent them from doing so. That is infringing on their rights, according to you. Thanks, that's a great argument for marriage equality!
But very simply, the fight for civil marriage equality does not mean that there will be any attempt to force churches to officiate at religious ceremonies. Loving v. Virginia definitively disproves your entire line of argument, thus revealing it to be an illogical scare tactic.
Actually ksand, it is not debunked. Imagine a church trying to not marry an interracial couple. Imagine the public outcry. After all it has been an established right for the past 40 years. Once gay marriage becomes an established right, imagine the public outcry if a church declines to conduct a ceremony.
Again, why are you equating the conclusion that some gay couple somewhere will try to force the issue with scare mongering? Why do you feel that it is beyond the pale? In your worldview it is alright for gay couples to get married by beyond your comprehension that a couple will sit in the back of the bus er... try to get married at a church which has made it clear that they do not support gay marriage.
"That is infringing on their rights, according to you. Thanks, that's a great argument for marriage equality!"
Ummm YES idiot, that *IS* what I have been flipping point out. You have been running from that conclusion like a freaking homophobe. I am saying that that is the logical result of this process. You are saying that it is beyond the pale.
I am saying that there was a much less intrusive way, a "leastest" change in the law to allow for the "mostest" benefit (to quote my judicial reasoning prof from way back when) than what is going to be the logical conclusion. You, and the groupthink here, don't see that distinction.
"And finally, if religious liberty is your litmus test, of course you're in support of gay marriage. There are churches today who want the ability to marry GLBT individuals, but state laws currently prevent them from doing so."
Ummm no, churches have (and will have) the right to do whatever they want in a spiritual manner, what they will lose the right to do is to make it legally binding.
"Imagine a church trying to not marry an interracial couple. Imagine the public outcry. After all it has been an established right for the past 40 years."
Yes, I'm saying that, for the fourty years since Loving v. Virginia, there has not been a single case brought to my attention where an interracial couple has demanded the right to marry in a church. Since interracial marriage is the closest analog, it debunks your entire line of reasoning.
"Again, why are you equating the conclusion that some gay couple somewhere will try to force the issue with scare mongering?"
Because, as you have accepted, for fourty years, it's analogue has not demanded the same. Your entire argument was predicated on your supposition that DEMANDING a church wedding was a "natural extension" of the argument for marriage equality. I said it was not. When you look at it's closest analog, interracial marriage, your argument falls apart. If it were a "natural extension," there would CLEARLY be legislation in place forcing churches to marry interracial couples. There is no such legislation. The claim that legislation would be a "natural extension" is completely debunked.
Furthermore, look at the Netherlands, one of the most liberal nations in the world, and the first to allow gay marriage. Dutch law strictly defines the right of gay marriage as a civil right, not a religious right, and municipalities in the Netherlands still can choose whether they want to officiate at the civil ceremonies. Furthermore, the Protestant Church of the Netherlands allows its individual churches the ability to decide whether to bless same-sex marriages.
"Ummm YES idiot, that *IS* what I have been flipping point out. You have been running from that conclusion like a freaking homophobe."
Wrong, you miss the point, of course. Beyond another ad hominem attack, (aka, yet another logical fallacy) I'm saying religious freedom means the ability for the churches, themselves, to choose whom to marry. Current legislation does not allow the churches that would officiate at a gay marriage to choose to do so. That argument DOES NOT SUPPOSE that legislation would be necessary to FORCE churches THAT DO NOT CHOOSE TO RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGES to do so. Sorry, you're confusing two points.
DOMA and the constitutional protections against gay marriage infringe upon the rights of churches who would choose to marry gay people, NOT on the rights of churches that would decline to marry a gay couple. Pretty significant difference that you're ignoring.
This is what you've relied on, thus far: the slippery-slope logical fallacy, which you've admitted is a slippery-slope argument, thus admitting its false premises. A prediction of future activity based upon your own logical fallacy, and not on its closest analog. And another logical fallacy in an ad hominem attack.
That's not an argument, it's a tiny block of swiss cheese, Cannon.
That's all the right has to offer nowadays. Scare tactics, logical fallacies and personal attacks. How sad.
Canon's argument, if valid, would mean that there would currently be legislation that mandated all churches would be forced to marry interracial couples. There is no such legislation. His fallback argument, that 10 years down the line, some hypothetical couple would demand that a church that hates them would have to marry them is laughably inane.
Let's travel back to 1967, when Loving v. Virginia passed. Race relations weren't anywhere near as good as they are now. It seems Canon's hypothetical further assumes that no interracial couple has ever been denied a marriage, due to his "could you imagine the outrage?!?" argument. If that's really the premise of his argument, that no interracial couple has been denied a religious blessing, he needs to go back to the 60's.
Were Canon's argument valid, there would be legislation forcing churches to marry interracial couples. There is no such legislation, so beyond the fallacious reasoning, when Canon's argument is put into practice, it's shown to be invalid.