Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterGibbons vetoes domestic partnerships bill
Monday, May 25, 2009 | 4:50 p.m.
Sun Coverage
CARSON CITY – Gov. Jim Gibbons has vetoed a domestic partners bill to give gay couples some of the same rights enjoyed by those who are married.
The governor said Senate Bill 283 “would effectively bypass that constitutional mandate by allowing the rights and privileges of marriage to be bestowed upon non-married persons.”
Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas, the sponsor of the bill, said previously he would talk with leadership to determine if an attempt will be made to override the veto.
The bill was approved 12-9 in the Senate and 26-14 in the Assembly. A two-thirds vote is required to override the governor’s veto.
The governor also vetoed two other bills, dealing with regional planning in Washoe County and setting standards for medical care for state prison inmates.
So far the governor has disapproved nine bills this session and he is starting to catch up with the record of 12 vetoed by Gov. Bob List in 1981. And the governor is just getting the tax bills that he promised to veto.
The domestic partners bill provides couples, either of the same sex or couples of opposite sex who are not married, such rights as community property, responsibility for debts and the right to seek alimony in a split up.
A couple would be required to register with the Secretary of State’s Office and pay a fee. The bill says a private and public employer would not be required to provide health care benefits to a domestic partner of an employer.
The governor said the Nevada Constitution, in an amendment approved by voters, provides that “only a marriage between a male and a female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.”
Gibbons said, “I believe that because the voters have determined that the rights of marriage should apply only to married couples, only the voters should determine whether those rights should equally apply to domestic partners.”
Voters in 2002 approved a constitutional amendment that a marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Supporters of the bill said this was about contract rights and not about marriage.
The governor said many of the same rights granted in the bill “are readily available today by way of private contracts.”
The governor said this veto “should not be taken to suggest that domestic partners are in any way undeserving the rights and protections.” He said he recently signed Senate Bill 207, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The governor also disapproved Assembly Bill 473, which requires the state Department of Corrections to adopt regulations on medical emergencies and the provision of medical and dental services to prisoners.
He said these requirements are already in the law. He said existing law already requires the director of the Department of Corrections to take “proper measures to protect the health and safety of staff and offenders in the institutions and facilities of the department.”
The governor said the corrections director is already required to establish standards for personal hygiene of offenders as well as standards for medical and dental services.
Assembly Bill 473 passed the Assembly 36-6 and the Senate 18-3.
Gibbons also vetoed a bill to require Washoe County to require in its comprehensive regional plan the amount of water that will serve the population.
The governor said existing law already ordered that regional planning in Washoe County must take into effect conservation including the use and protection of water resources. He said this bill is “redundant and unnecessary.”
Assembly Bill 119 cleared the Senate 27-14 and 12-9 in the Senate.
Discussion: 28 comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.
Post a comment
Spotlight
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Scattered rain, light snow today for Las Vegas area
- Pricey land buy on Strip a bit of a surprise
- Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas to close in May
- Engineering marvel taking shape near Hoover Dam
- Harry Reid’s co-writer unloads while discussing polls, Obama quote
- Grim numbers show Nevada leads nation in suicides over 60
- MGM Mirage to leave N.J. in dispute over Macau partner
- UNLV back in the polls: No. 23 in AP, No. 25 in ESPN/USA Today
- Governor plans emergency address on Nevada budget
- The Fortune Ball speaks: Take the Saints on the money line
Blogs
The Kats Report
A 3.5-day sprint, highlighted superflously at Flamingo with Las Vegas newcomers
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Horsford: No taxes now, but tax reform later (4 Comments)
Gibbons: Cutting the budget can help me raise money (6 Comments)
Gibbons: Lawmakers made State of State worse with taxes (3 Comments)
Ugly lawsuit between former garbage czar, ex-elected official continues in court Monday (7 Comments)
The Kats Report
The Fortune Ball speaks: Take the Saints on the money line
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
The Shootout could be a good indication of things to come (4 Comments)
Calendar »
- 9 Tue
- 10 Wed
- 11 Thu
- 12 Fri
- 13 Sat
-
Hugh Fink at the Riviera Comedy Club
The Riviera Comedy Club
-
The Automatic Tour at The Square Apple
The Square Apple
-
Rhumbar presents Pink Sugar Mondays
The Mirage Hotel and Casino
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
And to think of all the citizens out there, that do not like this governor.
They must be the chris wallace fans, that get into that tinglie thing going up their legs like he does!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the state is broke, why not allow gay marriage? imagine all the extra marriage registration fees and all of the extra tax money from the extra visitors that travel to las vegas for the gay marriages. it's sad if prostitution is legal, but gay marriages are not.
Brothels - "OK" Domestic Partnerships - "Vetoed"
http://www.tips-q.com/955518-nevada-brot...
"What makes this all the more remarkable is that Nevada's hospitality industry is really hurting (even those brothels). This veto will conceivably cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars per year in tourist revenues."
IMPEACH GIBBONS! He belongs in the 19th century!
Once again Gov. Gibbons does not disappoint our expectation that given the choice between justice and bigotry, he'll always choose the latter.
Like I said before Jim Gibbons is a man only a mother could love...
BTW, tingly = Chris Matthews, not Wallace
They should override the veto, godspeed. Civil rights are and should be guaranteed by the constitution, not up to a vote or subject to the whims of some nutty governator.
Thank goodness we have a governor who has served so vigorously as our moral compass. Sorry, LVPaco, but I disagree; I do not think even a mother could love this man.
"Gibbons said, "I believe that because the voters have determined that the rights of marriage should apply only to married couples, only the voters should determine whether those rights should equally apply to domestic partners." "
This is the kind of reasoning behind the Black Codes, Kristallnacht . And lynch mobs. Way to go, governor.
.
..
...One advantage to same sex marriage is you can reduce your wardrobe bill by fifty percent...
..
.
Nice going Nevada...we get moral lectures from this guy???
shawnfassett -- it wasn't a moral lecture, it was justification for his veto.
Nevada's Constitution, as this article states, was changed by the voters in 2002 to restrict marriage to one man/one woman. Although this is in direct conflict with the original promise of equality, the governor is stuck between a rock and a hard place, as he is bound by his oath of office to support the Constitution.
Actually, Gibbons did the right thing here. This was a half-baked bill to begin with. Rescind that ammendment if you want to do it right.
The *best* way to do it is to take all religious context out of the state marriage laws and call it something else, i.e. "domestic contract" and then let churches decide who they want to perform a wedding cerimony for.
This bill would actually have held back equal rights for a LONG time.
But KillerB, the Legislative Counsel Bureau produced a legal opinion that said this bill was not in conflict with the Nevada Constitution. When pressed for a legal opinion justifying why it was, opponents of this bill could not produce one.
It's not marriage. It's not even a civil union. It's basically making it easier for 2 people (gay or straight) to draw up a legal contract for some of the same benefits that married couples have. As it stands now such contracts are expensive to draw up, and then expensive to litigate down the road.
Gibbons is a one term Governor.
"But KillerB, the Legislative Counsel Bureau produced a legal opinion that said this bill was not in conflict with the Nevada Constitution. When pressed for a legal opinion justifying why it was, opponents of this bill could not produce one."
DouglasD -- A good response.
"Legal opinions" are unreliable at best. For those of us lay people who have to rely on what's in plain black and white that's a different thing.
You decide (and check it for yourself at http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NVConst...
Article I (1864 "Declaration of Rights"), Section. 1: "Inalienable rights. All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness[.]"
2002 Amendment to Article I: "Sec: 21. Limitation on recognition of marriage. Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state."
I don't believe it's a stretch to see the conflict, particularly when there's no political agenda here demanding a pre-determined outcome. And I don't understand why "equal" is such a hard term for anyone to understand, also when stripped of political or moral agendas.
Except, KillerB, the bill in question has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. The word isn't even in the bill text. So how does granting domestic partnerships impact the institution of marriage as stated in Article I, section 21?
DouglasD -- It's all about marriage, regardless of the label used.
The history of this topic here over the past few months has shown marriage has been given certain advantages by positive law all the way from municipal contracts to Congress and military benefits. Just recently the local cop killed in that 90 mph crash had a daughter and a fiancee, as I recall she was his child's mother. Yet only the child will receive the federal death benefit because they weren't married. Doesn't that strike you as discriminatory?
"Granting domestic partnerships" was just the easier way to get around the marriage prohibition in this legislature. The rights are already there, always have been, and the states and feds have promised to protect them as part of their organic law. Taken in that context it's not within government power to "grant" or "allow" liberties the people already hold. And government is certainly prohibited from making and enforcing any policies resulting in inequality.
Equal means equal. Can't you see denying otherwise qualified citizens the same rights as the rest of the public is the opposite of equality?
You do know that gay marriage is specifically prohibited in the Nevada Constitution.
So you can turn blue in the face but an item specifically listed in the Nevada Constitution can be not unconstitutional in the Nevada Constitution.
Reid's campaign strongly supported the ban and even released a letter that he wrote to a voter that stated that he was going to vote for the ban and in no uncertain terms was 100% for the ban.
Obama has repeatedly spoken against gay marriage and has stated that each state can choose to ban gay marriage if they wanted too.
"You do know that gay marriage is specifically prohibited in the Nevada Constitution."
Senate Bill 283, Section 11: "A domestic partnership is not a marriage for the
purposes of Section 21 of Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution."
As I said, when pressed for a LEGAL opinion on how this could possibly conflict with Article 1, Section 21 of the Nevada Constitution...none was tendered by opponents of SB283. So either they couldn't find one lawyer in the entire State of Nevada to write such an opinion, or no such opinion could be written.
Legal contracts, which the governor says are an alternative, are really not. Take Do Not Resuscitate orders or organ donor forms - even if you sign and have witnessed such orders, it still can be fought in court that "you really didn't mean it".
Nor does this bill recognize gay marriages performed in other states - upon moving to Nevada, their marriage would be converted to a domestic partnership.
"Reid's campaign strongly supported the ban and even released a letter that he wrote to a voter that stated that he was going to vote for the ban and in no uncertain terms was 100% for the ban."
HAHAHA! Previously, you swore up and down he voted for it, now you have to walk-back your language.
Weak!
DouglasD -- all good points, except one: "So either they couldn't find one lawyer in the entire State of Nevada to write such an opinion, or no such opinion could be written."
I make the point again -- We ordinary people rely on what's in plain black and white. Why do we see the obvious and they can't? Law isn't mysterious, it's just very cumbersome and sometimes complex. The way law is made and enforced, now that's a different thing we should all be concerned about and involved in.
I will yield to your obviously better knowledge of Nevada's history, since I'm new to the state.
No, law isn't mysterious. And as they say, the two things you never want to see made are laws and sausages.
It's a good bill, and the problem I see is that there are two forces working against it: those that conflate what this bill says with gay marriage (despite the clear and unambiguous language to the contrary), and those that believe that it doesn't go far enough (this is "the perfect is the enemy of the good" crowd).
"HAHAHA! Previously, you swore up and down he voted for it, now you have to walk-back your language."
You got me again, ksand99.
For your theory to work, you have to call Reid a bold face liar.
But hell, if the shoes fits..............
FLASH -- Just caught this, the California Supreme Court has upheld the Prop 8 ban on gay marriage. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...
I'm mentioning it here because it appears to address what I've been hammering here, the Equality Clause in the state's Constitution.
From that article:
Justice Carlos Moreno wrote the dissenting opinion disagreeing that the proposition did not change the constitution's equal protection clause. He said the law denying same-sex couples the right to wed "strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution." He said it represents a "drastic and far-reaching change."
"Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment for all," said Moreno, who had been mentioned as a possible contender for the U.S. Supreme Court. "Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment."
The real question to ask is:
WHO WANTS TO GET MARRIED ANYWAYS?
Hasn't marriage destroyed enough lives in this country already?
moannnn! Some good points here, I am part of a liberal religious organization that advocates strongly for equal rights for happy folks - gays, lesbians, homosexuals, transgender, and all the others. Ok, get the gov out of here - can he be recalled? I am a soul passing through here so I don't know what the deal is about recalls, etc. I figure he is a few degrees worse than one of my former govs, blago himself!
Domestic partnerships: No
Cheap passes at barmaids from a married man: An enthusiastic yes!
Boy, it's good to know that our governor has his priorities in the right place!