Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
By J. Patrick Coolican (contact) 
Thursday, May 28, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Related Document (.pdf)
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 Archives
- 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)
Sun Coverage
Sun Blogs
Reader poll
Nevada has a long history of libertarianism, having welcomed gambling and prostitution while eschewing regulation and taxes.
But that legacy appears threatened in the closing days of the legislative session, as Gov. Jim Gibbons’ veto of a bill granting domestic partnership rights to straight and gay couples seems likely to be sustained.
Gibbons vetoed Senate Bill 283, which would create a new kind of civil contract that offers the same rights to a domestic partner as a marital spouse, though the bill specifically says the new class of civil contract is not marriage.
The bill passed with 26 votes in the Assembly and 12 in the Senate; it will need 28 and 14 to override the Gibbons veto.
Perhaps because of Nevada’s history of libertarianism, as well as the state tourism industry’s marketing of that ethos, the country is watching as legislators deliberate.
That attention, in turn, could have consequences.
Neal Broverman, who has been writing about the issue for a leading gay publication, The Advocate, said its readers are planning a boycott of Nevada’s tourism spots if the measure fails.
The threat of a boycott has energized the tourism industry, which is now lobbying the issue hard.
Las Vegas has become a popular destination for gay and lesbian travelers and a source of revenue for the Las Vegas Strip especially.
“Most of us in Nevada absolutely support gay and lesbian rights,” Jan Jones, the former Las Vegas mayor and senior vice president of Harrah’s Entertainment, told The Advocate. “This is a big fight. We’re not ready to give up. We want to override the veto.”
Governor’s rationale
The veto has sparked outrage among the bill’s advocates.
In the veto letter, Gibbons said the measure would “effectively bypass” the constitutional mandate against gay marriage — approved by voters in 2000 and 2002 — “by allowing the rights and privileges of marriage to be bestowed upon non-married persons.”
Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, called the claim “nonsense,” citing a section of the bill that specifically says the domestic partnerships are not marriage.
“It is debunked by every legal expert who has looked at the issue,” he said, citing attorneys for the Legislative Counsel Bureau, the office of the attorney general, as well as legal experts at UNLV’s Boyd School of Law.
As Peck noted, the campaign for the ballot initiative, called Question 2, specifically said the constitutional amendment was not an attempt to ban domestic partnerships.
Notably, similar marriage amendments in other states included provisions banning domestic partnerships, though that is not true of Nevada’s, Peck said.
Gibbons’ letter said only voters should be allowed to determine whether marriage rights apply to domestic partners.
Peck said that does not comport with basic constitutional principles.
Generally, rights are extended to minorities over the objections of the majority, not with the majority’s consent.
For instance, if the South had been given the opportunity to vote on rights extended to blacks via the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the measures would likely have failed.
Finally, Gibbons says in his letter that the rights extended by the bill are available through other means, such as wills and trusts.
Peck said obtaining these separate contracts would be costly and cumbersome and could be vulnerable to legal challenges.
“Someone could come into court and challenge all of it,” he said, laying out a potential scenario: “A mother could say, ‘I’m next of kin. I challenge this.’ Absent a domestic partnership law, that would make those contracts much more vulnerable to challenge,” he said.
Peck said a range of rights would be difficult to acquire through contracts, from the minor, such as being able to drive a car rented by a domestic partner, to the more meaningful, such as protection from being compelled to testify against a domestic partner in court; or the ability to claim alimony rights and a fair share of community property in case of separation.
The bill would not cost private or public employers anything, as they would have the choice to provide health benefits to domestic partners.
For state Sen. David Parks, the chief sponsor and the Legislature’s only openly gay member, dropping a mandate for health and other benefits from the bill must have been a bitter concession. He is a retired Las Vegas, Clark County and Regional Transportation Commission administrator who noted he has subsidized the benefits of his co-workers’ dependents for years though has never had access to benefits for his own family.
Where the issue stands
It will take a strong final push to override the veto.
For the bill’s champions, the vote, which could happen as soon as today, looks like an uphill battle.
Of the 12 Senate Democrats, all supported the measure except Sens. John Lee and Terry Care, who are said to oppose the measure on religious grounds.
Republican Sens. Randolph Townsend and Mike McGinness supported the bill when it passed.
Parks is hoping to turn the votes of Republican Sens. Dean Rhoads and Dennis Nolan.
Rhoads said he’s now on the fence, but is satisfied the bill is not an attempt to end-run the state constitution’s prohibition against gay marriage. Rhoads also said he has received twice as much correspondence in favor as against, including from heterosexual couples who want domestic partnerships rights.
Advocates for the bill are well organized and active.
Nolan said he’s still inclined to vote no but declined to comment further, saying he did not want to be barraged with more lobbying from both sides.
Nolan and other opponents may believe they have found political cover in a recent Review-Journal poll showing half of Nevadans are opposed to any recognition of civil unions, with 38 percent in favor.
The poll looks like an outlier, however, as most national polls now show that between 55 percent and 70 percent of Americans believe gays are entitled to legal protection, either through marriage or a civil contract like the measure proposed here.
One Nevada libertarian, who usually spends his time railing against regulation and taxes, sees a threat to the state’s live-and-let-live legacy.
Chuck Muth, a smash-mouth political operative, sent a letter to legislators urging them to override the veto.
The bill “only provides equal protection under the law for gay couples (and others) without violating the constitutional prohibition against calling such relationships ‘marriage,’ ” he wrote. “I urge you to vote to override the governor’s veto even if you originally voted against passage. It’s the right thing to do.”
He concludes: “Either that, or get the government completely out of the marriage business altogether.”
Sun reporter David McGrath Schwartz contributed to this report.
Nevada prudish? Nevada, with its' brothels, gambling, mafia history and corruption scandals-votes to pass moral judgement on gay couples?
Many states offer gambling and entertainment now.
Gay couples will get the message.
There is a hypocrisy that exists in Nevada. Members of the Mormon Church in particular have no problem working in establishments with gambling, investing in businesses that serve alcohol and many other related ventures. When it comes to making money nothing not even G-d stands in the way. But when it comes to equality rights for the LGBT community there is a large "religious" contingency that has no problem denying a groups rights because it infringes on their religious beliefs.
In the coming years this nation will have to make difficult decisions that will either take us away from the religious arguments or move us towards a system that emulates that of Iran's system of religious based government.
Either government will stand strong against religious groups as it is enshrined in the First Amendment or we will amend the constitution to respect one religion. We pray that the later is not the option.
Watch the news, read the blogs, listen to office chatter and hear radio talk that will all rip the GOV for this decision.
Yet, Obama has also spoken out against Gay Rights. And, nobody rips Obama. Interesting bias again.
As of today I am joining the Americans for the Separation of Church and State... http://www.au.org/
If we allowed voters to decide all civil rights issues, what would have happened to equal rights for minorities throughout our history...women, blacks, Indians, Hispanics, aged, handicapped etc.
Nevada, pathetic
For me, the problem is that in a complex bill, the "Devil is so often in the Details". There are so many components. Many states approval of such arrangements include means for gay couples to access the "public trough" for benefits that are otherwise reserved to hetero married couples. It is not clear to me whether Nevada's bill is simply another form of the same thing.
While I am unhesitatingly against difficulties for gay couples to see each other in the hospital for example, I am opposed to legislation that would allow access of the "trough" to couples who chose an alternative life style, or to single people for that matter. Thus, for me, the "trough" is decidedly accessible only to hetero married couples.
If I were a legislator, I would want to be crystal sure that benefits bestowed on gay couples by the pending legislation did not cross over into those I believe reserved to hetro married couples. Only then would I vote to override.
I hope the Governor's veto is overridden. I believe that the majority of Nevadans would at a minimum support Domestic Partnerships, if not same-sex marriage, as our state has changed greatly since the amendment to the constitution passed banning same-sex marriage.
JAN JONES is so out there that it hurts and it's unbelievable that Harrah's would keep her employed in any capacity. She has the facts wrong and on Jon Ralston she promoted her twisted facts. Contrary to Jones, most Nevadans don't support gay and lesbians rights, ... instead they are disgusted when they see them in our streets and neighborhoods. Keep gays out of Nevada!
I really would like to see this poll that shows such little support. What was the age demographics, was it a telephone poll or mail in, what was the religious demographics? I do not know of one single person who participated in any state poll. Also, every poll I have read from the Reno paper, to this paper and on the web site show overwhelming support for a "non-marriage" domestic partner bill. It even says in the bill this is not a marriage and no religion has to support it. As an emergency room nurse, I support any medical rights to any two people who would like them.
dear scherf, you need to do some fact checks - hiv originated with gays? you don't need to worry about getting hiv from anyone if you don't engage in sexual behaviors with them. as for you - i would think that anyone at all may have difficulty getting close to you and others who are so full of hate. look in the mirror and smile as a reflection of the heavenly one smiling on you.
as for the gov - he should see if he has any interest in any kind of partnership - as for Dawn - well may she have a good life!
"It is a well-know fact that HIV began with homosexulas in the early 80s" and ad nauseum.
scherf.com -- either defend your point with at least a supporting link to a credible source, or expect to be disrespected and ignored here.
From the tone of your post, apparently a milder version of your earlier removed post, your bigotry is exceeded only by your ignorance.
By the way, the Las Vegas Sun has written articles about us (Dietmar Scherf / scherf.com) at e.g.:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/1998/feb...
The whole problem revolves around the meanings of the word "marriage". As I see it, the word has two different meanings that are being confused.
1) "Marraige" describes a relation between two people that has been approved of (blessed, if you will) by a religious body, a church.
2) "Marriage" describes a particular set of contractual obligations and benefits that accrue to two people who have applied for such by obtaining a suitable license from the State and further having that license activated.
It is the act of activating that license that is the problem. Traditionally it is done through having a wedding ceremony of some type, which places the relationship under definition "1". However, there has always been the option of going to a Justice of the Peace. Such a person is NOT a religious, but the words used in the civil ceremony come largely from the religious realm.
The solution is to remove all religious connotation from the act of activating the license when having a civil ceremony, possibly doing away with having such at all. It might be considered that the act of applying for and receiving the license is sufficient to establish the relationship with all obligations and benefits pertaining thereto. A religious ceremony would be just that, and an optional one that the various groups could control the requirements to receive one. But such a ceremony would have no force in law.
There is already precident for such in so much as the plural marriages of various religious groups are not recognized by the State and are in fact deemed illegal, though those groups give them full force and credence.
I'm thinking this "sherf.com" poster has lost his marbles and isn't playing with a full deck and even driving with his headlights off.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste sherf.......and you've pissed yours down the drain into a puddle of utter stupidity.
I am truly in awe of the article by the Sun about Dietmar Scherf and very glad he posted the link to it. It explains everything about his posts. I found it both ironic and appropriate that his self-published book was released on April 1st.
We can now evaluate everything he says in the light of him being a self-confessed lunatic.
"Studies show that anyone who supports gay rights, is most likely at heart a homosexual, either openly gay or still in the closet."
No, they don't. Link two studies that "show" this.
"BTW, I have gay friends who had this experience"
Considering yesterday one of your comments were removed because you used the F word to describe gay men, I severely doubt they are your "friends."
"BTW, HIV originated with homosexuals and that's a well-known fact as all initial cases of HIV were found only in homosexuals and not in straight people, ... everybody knows that."
Actually, no, scientists think that is untrue. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/501226...
"Also HIV can be transferred via body fluids (sweat, blood, saliva, etc.) via toilet seats, etc. and not just through sexual intercourse, otherwise Magic Johnson would not have been banned from basketball when he was diagnosed of this dangerous disease, even though he wasn't/isn't gay."
Again, untrue. Johnson retired, there is no such "ban" on HIV-positive individuals in the NBA, as he RETURNED TO THE SPORT after retiring to play in the NBA... as an HIV-positive man.
"And since so many gays are infected with the HIV virus..."
Since there's roughly 9x as many straight people as gay in the world, the incidence of infection of any major communicable disease if FAR GREATER in the straight population than the gay population.
"check the facts on that how tourists are turned off by Disney World's annual gay pride week"
FACTS? It's a gay DAY, not a week. Facts, as we have seen, aren't your strongest suit.
"So, I think people it's important to think and check the real facts before you speak/write. "
You've already made countless factual errors to this point, your credibility is shot, even less than multiple-personality jfNance32/SgtRock/NVMakz.
"P.S. I hope the LAS VEGAS SUN editoral staff is mature enough to keep such discussions including my very well educated comments and opinions online"
Again, yesterday you refered to gay men as F____ts. Mature? Not even close.
The domestic bill really has nothing to do with gays, the bill protects unmarried couples who live together and share community property, who need the same rights as married couples, the bill has nothing to do with gay couples. This is unfair, to single out one group. I myself, lived with my partner for over 15 years, without getting married. During that 15 years, I was not protected, like I should have been, if we where married.
Ksand, you and I rarely, if ever agree, but this time we do. May I suggest that you save yourself a LOT of frustration and read the link that Scherf posted to the story about him? It is truly enlightening. I think you will agree with me that he can be completely ignored in most cases. (Though if he ever posts on financial matters it might be worth an initial lookover since he was, as least in the past, sucessful in the market.)
Blah Blah Blah Blah - - This is entertaining!
Scherf, Britney Spears also "did well in the market" and I'd be much more likely to utilize her financial advice than someone so mislead by whisper campaigns and "known facts" that are neither known, nor facts.
Safe until his big headed a$$ is out of office. Have you seen that mans forehead? I think he has a eighthead!
yup, lots of heat and once in a while a flash of light - ok, remove the gov - keep the police on alert for some of the other loons. Pray a lot and come and join a good liberal church that preaches love and not the rejection of people.
"Of the 12 Senate Democrats, all supported the measure except Sens. John Lee and Terry Care, who are said to oppose the measure on religious grounds."
My question is "are lawmakers who make decisions on 'religious grounds' violating the Constitution by effectively endorsing religion as government agents?
My second question is, since 'marriage' originated from religion, why are the courts and government even involved in deciding who can and cannot marry in the first place? In other words the government should not be involved in deciding any matters pertaining to religious issues.
More fowl language and hateful bigotry from scherf(dot)com. You're quickly losing the battle over marriage. I can see it's driven you completely over the edge.
To ksand99: just keep your pants on, will you? Relax, it's free speech which the Sun doesn't honor as it pushes and promotes its own biased liberal agenda. The Sun rather caters to 1% of the population (the gays) than to the 99% of the broad straight population. I don't know what's wrong with the Sun, but it has changed from a good voice a decade ago to a junk liberal political Democratic-party driven trash propaganda outlet who deceives the few readers it has with censorship and biased content.
We can all have opinions and express them, it's a constitutional right, and if the Sun is a public forum, then it shouldn't provide censorship like these old communist propaganda media. The Sun has also double standards as it e.g. doesn't remove personal attack comments like by you ksand99 as you fit the desired readership profile of the Sun.
In our opinion which is based on extensive research and as explained, gays are a danger to society and their lifestyle is a harmful example to our youth, and we don't want gays in Nevada. Conservatives are not losing the battle over marriage, because the vast majority in this country holds to the biblical and only rightful tradition of marriage which is between a man and a woman.
Also, our language is not fowl or hateful, instead it is you ksand99 who is the bigot and is spreading the hate. We only explain and educate, ... in this case the dangers of the gay lifestyle.
Sure, we'll see how fast this comment gets removed, ... maybe you ksand99 have a chance to read it.
Contrary to Jan Jones comments, catering to the gay community reduces tourism and keeps straight people away from gay-friendly destinations.
A prime example are the Disney World gay days which span over a week as most straight tourists will not visit Disney World during that time and even not weeks before and after the event. Disney has received tremendous criticism for its gay-friendly activities and has therefore suffered economically. That's a fact you can take that home, and it's not worth it to cater to only a 1% minority group of the population (the gays) when 99% of the population is straight and it's the 99% who bring in the revenues.
scherf.com
I see all these remarks you make here with claims of wild statistics (1% vs 99% for example) but absolutely no evidence to back them up. I guess what I'm saying is put up or shut up.
I have yet to personally see or know a single straight person "disgusted" with gay behavior. Maybe you and your own social clique don't like it, but don't just assume that because you have a paticular view the majority shares it with you. In this case, it's quite the contrary and no matter how hard you cry and scream the reality is society is becoming more tolerant and accepting of LGBT individuals just like it did with people of color, and soon your kind will be extinct (thankfully).
A poll found that males self identified themselves as 1.6% as gay and 0.9% as bisexual.
The same poll found that females self identified themselves as 1.6% as gay and 0.9% as bisexual.
So I be not be so worried about a gay boycott.
Sex in Australia: The Australian study of health and relationships, Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society. (Published as the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health vol 27 no 2.)
According to the study, gay/bisexual teens have nearly twice the risk of getting HIV than non-gay/bisexual teens.
The other curious point is that gay/bisexual male teens having a higher rate of getting a female pregnant than non-gay/bisexaul teens.
Both of these points have very little with the main topic but somebody was saying that HIV and sexual orientation have nothing to do with each other. I think the stats and just pure common sense dispute that.
http://www.mcs.bc.ca/pdf/BC_european_you...
Ban marriage all together.
"Ban marriage all together."
annienonymouse -- actually it would be better if government just got out of the marriage business completely. Even better, get out of the family business and leave us all alone.
Reasoning: marriage stripped down to its legal basics is little more than a civil contract. Constitutions include prohibitions against laws being made to impair the obligations of contracts. Yet no-fault divorce does exactly that. I was in a courtroom once helping someone make exactly that point. The judge disposed of about fourteen hours of research and drafting the memorandum in about 90 seconds with "I'm not going to make her a slave to the marriage." So the person who repudiated the marriage contract got what she wanted. That and other examples have proven to me courts routinely ignore even basic law to defend the status quo.
KillerB - I concur that would be a better idea than to ban marriage all together.
scherf.com
you are an idiot. you are the perfect example of an ignorant person who must express themself with inapproprate language and statements. so much so that we are not allowed to see them
gay people reduce tourism? you really have your head buried in some unidentifiable place at this point in your pathetic stupid ignorant life.
we all know you will alwaysgo away angry but please for all of our sake, just go away you moron
"Both of these points have very little with the main topic but somebody was saying that HIV and sexual orientation have nothing to do with each other."
Nope, no one said that. Another jfNance32 straw man fallacy.
But do they have "something to do with each other? Not really. Any sexual orientation is at risk for HIV, and since you seem to think there's only a tiny number of gay men, we should be MUCH MUCH more worried about straight people, right jfNance32?
As for your poll numbers, I can show you polls that put that percentage much higher, as well as estimates. Does a low percentage of population mean we should revoke marriage rights? Nope. That's mob rule, not a Democracy.
Really, jfNance32, is this the best you can do?
i think that jfinance32 and scherf.com are the same person with a bad personality disorder
Actually, huhahil, jfNance32 changed his screen name to SgtRock. (LOL!)
But I agree, that kind of bigotry is disgusting.
sgtrock!!!!!at this point i think he had to change his name. really!, with all this research he or she is doing about homosexuality and all the interest in it certainly starts to make me wonder "how loudly he doth protest"
sgtrock you should be interviewed by seth myers on SNL's weekend update for the REALLY segment.
sgtrock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!breakking into laughter, this is getting hysterical! i am playing all kind of scenarios in my mind meeting this bunch of narrowminded idiots. sgrock?, did you get that pen name from the gay advocate?
ia am waiting for sgtrocks next global report on sexual experimentation and i am getting very impatient!!!!, perhaps he/she is discussing the situation with scherf.com before the next statement is released. i am staying tuned.
Can anyone give an argument against same-sex relationships that does NOT involve a religious veiw? If not, then there is no reason why they should not be identical in all respects with opposite-sex ones.
The existance, and acceptance, of common-law marriages (which do not involve or require a church ceremony) should negate all of the arguments involving marriage being the domain of "god".
boftx, thank you
some of us use a religious basis to speak in favor of having same sex relationships - ok, and we oppose stuff like what the governbaiter did!
I think Gibbons was correct to veto the bill. Not because I oppose same-sex marriage, but because I want Prop. 2 repealed and for there to be no consideration whatsoever given to the genders of the two people involved.
It is my opinion that having this bill pass will in fact give credence to the argument that there is something different about such relationships that require special treatment by the law, which is contrary to all that the language of Article 1 says about equality of people.
Salient facts: The same Gibbons who wanted Obama to apologize to NV for causing a perceived loss of tourism - is now the same man willing to lose GLBT dollars because of his Morals? Or wait, is it his Ethics? Whats really driving this?? Take a look at the group which pumped $$ into Prop 8 in CA - I think you will find your answer.
To somehow pretend this bill is somehow edgy or even liberal belies facts. The facts are, over 80% of leading companies today recognize domestic partners. There are HUNDREDS of cities, states and towns that do the same. Its a mockery that Nevada stands locked in this 1970's world view; this blend of religion with a little wink to the gambling, booze, and prostitution that fills the state coffers.
Gibbons said that he veto the bill because it was not the will of the people which is true.
The people and Senator Reid supported the ban on gay marriage.
A recent poll also said that the majority of the people did not support this bill.
Both Obama and Reid are against gay marriage.
Both men believe it is up to each state to decide and do not want a federal law banning gay marriage.
Reid fully supported the Nevada Constitutional ban on gay marriage and released a letter to the public where he stated that he was going to vote for the measure.
Obama has said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
Obama has placed overturning 'Don't Ask Don't Tell" as a low prority in his adminstration.
Obama had a preacher who preachs that homosexuality is a sin to have a leading role in the celebration of his crowning ceremony.
Now, you hypocrites, you should be attacking Reid and Obama for being dumb, stupid and haters.
Silence..........................
jfNance32, James F Nance, Jr, SgtRock:
Obama has said he is in favor of civil unions.
Neither Reid nor Obama voted for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. They both voted against it. Thanks to Reid and Obama, if the Prop 8 challenge makes its way to the Supreme Court, gay marriage could become legal throughout the United States.
It is stupid to think someone who voted against a constitutional amendment hates gay people.
It is stupid to think someone who openly advocates for civil unions hates gay people.
But then, that completely explains your position!
jfnance aka sgtrock i think that if anyone sdhould question themselves it should be you. you are way to intereseted in gay life to the point that you had to change your name to sgtrock????????????, iam sorry that really makes me chuckle. who will you be next?
i am coming to las vegas in july. maybe by that time you will have your own one man gay show. the village people had three so you are almost there.
oh!, i forgot sgtrock, any more global information on male homosexual activity???
"Neither Reid nor Obama voted for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage."
Reid's campaign said many times that he supported Nevada's Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and also released a letter that stated that he would vote for the gay marriage ban.
"Neither Reid nor Obama voted for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage."
ksand, SgtRock -- it is irrelevant what Reid or Obama or anyone else on the federal level want or don't want on that topic. Marriage is outside the authority granted to the federal government, and that includes Congress. That means no federal Constitutional amendment, and that means no jurisdiction.
Of course, the feds show us constantly they are off their leashes and don't care what Constitutions or other laws say.
Nevada citizens enacted an admenment to ban gay marriage to the Nevada State Constitution.
Reid supported that admenment when he was running for the US Senate.
This bill had nothing to do with gay marriage - to even think there is something "controversial" over this bill strikes me as a stretch -- 80% of most large companies in the USA already have domestic partner benefits (straight OR gay), hundreds of town, cities, and villages ALREADY enacted similar legislation, including Asheville NC (hardly a liberal bastion).
The "right" and certain religious groups keep trying to tie this to "marriage" as a smokescreen.
sgtrock, i think you should let it go. it seems that you are missing the specific spot in your brain that allows you to comprehend things.
i don't criticize you for your religion, why should you critcize my rights as a citizen
Wow... scherf - very ignorant. Thank you for the entertainment.
It is amazing to me that with the economy as it is... We APPROVE raising room taxes to make Nevada less attractive. We APPROVE massive tax increases to make Nevada less attracive. We APPROVE massive spending to make Nevada less attractive. We kill off major sources of state funding and tourism with the doubling of the business license tax, and we can still afford to send gays packing as well.
I can't figure this legislature out.
But don't worry, we're still pumping record amounts of seawater (money) into the Titanic (CCSD)
scherf is very entertaining, right? i think this person is also a business owner. sells bible books, musical instruments and i think motorcycle parts or something. i think the website says something about donating some of their profits to a higher power?? let us know scherf
KillerB: it's not irrelevant when it comes to recognizing those marriages at a federal level... for tax purposes, etc. JfNance32/SgtRock wants to paint Obama as some sort of antigay crusader when he's said he's for civil unions. There will have to be either legislative action or judicial review at the federal level to obtain federal recognition of either marriage or unions.
Meanwhile, jfNance32/SgtRock has never said whether he supports civil unions. One can only guess that is because he does not, because he approves of discrimination against the GLBT community.
ksand99 -- understood, but what you're mentioning is all incidental. It has nothing to do with marriage itself, it's licensing, dissolution, and so on.
http://scherf.com/ds.htm
truly a legend in his own mind