Committee approves gay rights partnership bill

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 | 11:45 a.m.

Reader poll

Assembly panel advances gay discrimination bill (5-1-09)
Senate advances bill to give rights to gay couples (4-21-09)
Gay rights group requests meeting with Gibbons (4-15-09)
Gibbons says he won’t sign domestic partners bill (4-14-09)
Domestic partnership legislation advances (4-9-09)
Bill to extend rights to same-sex couples advances (4-8-09)
Bill would give gays same rights as married couples (3-16-09)

CARSON CITY – Over the objections of Republicans, the Assembly Judiciary Committee has approved a bill giving certain rights to gay couples, the same as those enjoyed by married couples.

Assemblyman William Horne, D-Las Vegas, said this bill “has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.” It is about civil relationships between two persons, he said.

Senate Bill 283, which goes to the floor of the Assembly for vote probably later this week, provides that domestic partners have the same rights in such things as community property, responsibility for debts and the right to seek alimony in a split up.

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, D-Sparks, said this bill “is not a marriage license.” And Tick Segerblom, D-Las Vegas, said this bill helps strengthen relationship between individuals.

A couple that wants to achieve these rights must register with the Secretary of State and pay a fee. The bill as amended says that a private employer is not required to provide health care benefits to a domestic partner of an employee. The Senate, in approving the bill, said government does not have to provide health insurance coverage for these partners.

The bill also says that a “solemnization ceremony is not required in order to enter a binding domestic partnership contract.”

Assemblyman Ty Cobb, R-Reno, said this bill does not conflict with the constitutional amendment approved by the voters in 2002 that marriage is between a man and a woman. But he said it “conflicts with the intent of the people” who supported the ban between marriages of couples of the same sex.

He said this bill has “unintended consequences” such as exempting the real property transfer tax when property is exchanged between the two individuals. He said these domestic partners will not be required to testify in court against each other.

These rights in the bill, he said, could be achieved by entering into contracts.

Assemblyman Don Gustavson, R-Sparks, said the bill creates a fee to be collected by the Secretary of State to have these partnerships. He suggested that a two-thirds vote was necessary to pass any new or increased tax or fee.

But the legal staff for the committee said this was a “revenue neutral” fee and does not generate any more revenue.

The bill said the fees received must be used “solely to pay for expenses related to administering the filing of domestic partnerships …”

The measure says a surviving domestic partner, following the death of the other partner, has the same rights, protections and benefits and is subject to the same obligations as granted or imposed upon a widow or widower.

And the bill bars discrimination against domestic partners.

If approved by the Assembly, it returns to the Senate for agreement on some amendments imposed by the committee.

Besides Cobb and Gustavson, other Republicans voting against the measure were Richard McArthur and John Hambrick both of Las Vegas. Hambrick said he reserved the right to change his vote when the bill reaches the floor of the Assembly.

Anderson, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Assemblyman John Carpenter, R-Elko, who was absent, wanted to be recorded as opposed to the bill.

Discussion: 10 comments so far…

By rstanberry

5/12/09 at 12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

This is a good step towards equallity on both sides of the fence. Although think of the revenue of the Las Vegas coffers if we allowed same-sex marriages. People would be flying in daily just like the ones that elope now due to our Marriages without blood tests.
By DavidHart

5/12/09 at 1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

I haven't seen more recent figures but I recall that, in February, LV visitor traffic was off 8%. The economic logic for recognizing same-sex marriages is quite compelling. It's also the right thing to do.

Gay marriage is inevitable nationwide and Nevada is rolling the dice. The state would be much better off with a legislative initiative (which could carve out some additional religious protections a la Vermont). The alternative is that a court will decide that the state's DOMA is legally flawed. After all, it is an expression of dominionism.

I have yet to entertain a single coherent argument that supports the notion that one couple's gay marriage has any effect on any other couple's "traditional" marriage. Current laws recognize the establishment of religion.

Separate but equal isn't equal.
http://www.tips-q.com
By 2zero

5/12/09 at 1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Just think if we allowed people to marry their farm animals...or mormons marrying their preteen extended family members....it's all good?

Think of all the tourists?
By NewToThis

5/12/09 at 1:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

What does religion have to do with this? If gays' were to marry, then any other combination of people must be allowed the same. Where does it stop? Why marriage? Very logical discussions are made for domestic partnership or civil unions, why marriage? If gays are so unique and special, then have the uniqueness of a domestic partnership or civil union instead of the boring, age-old marriage. Why marriage? If one of the reasons is health-care related, then wouldn't it be the hospitals that need to change their policies? Anyone can leave anything to anyone in a Will, Living Will or put someone in charge before death with a Power of Attorney. There's your single coherent argument.
By ksand99

5/12/09 at 2:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

"Very logical discussions are made for domestic partnership or civil unions, why marriage? If gays are so unique and special, then have the uniqueness of a domestic partnership or civil union instead of the boring, age-old marriage. Why marriage?"

You really shouldn't advertise that the point flies so high over your head. The point is that gays and lesbians AREN'T special. They deserve equal rights under the Constitution, and this is a step in the right direction of those rights.

The slippery slope logical fallacy is just that: a logical fallacy. Entire nations have legalized gay marriage and it has not led to people marrying anything other than their committed partners. It's a proven fallacy.
By Sunvisitor

5/12/09 at 3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Good answer ksand99. If only you could actually change people's closed minds with logical thought. :-)
By KillerB

5/12/09 at 7:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

2zero -- you're still posting the same bigoted crap. At least come up with something original.
By travislv86

5/12/09 at 8:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Just let people be happy, why do people care who kisses who when it comes to adults. We're on the west coast; let's join the other liberal (smart) thinking states to the south and north of us. If gay men stop wearing Caprees, I'll join you in protests, can we make a deal?
By NevadaFive

5/12/09 at 8:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Civil unions - ok - i get it. Go for it! Marriage? I have to give more thought and learning on that. But, the way I'm understanding this: civil unions = marriage. I offer one situation: I would enter into a civil union with my best friend but he's already married (to a woman). I have certain medical conditions that I would entrust to him without question over and above my own adult children. I understand under current law my direct offspring (I am divorced) have that power. If I could have a "civil union" with my friend - would this give him rights over and above my immediate blood-relatives? I realize this is kind of a twist - as I have no interest in living as a "couple" with my friend - but the civil union concept seems to cover my intentions as it would bind us by law? Or, is this a form of bigamy? Discuss amongst yourselves...
By KillerB

5/13/09 at 8:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Nevada5 -- so why not marriage and "allows" these citizens the very same rights everyone else similarly situated take for granted?

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question