Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterWith veto override, domestic partners bill becomes law
Nevada becomes 17th state to recognize gay relationships
Sunday, May 31, 2009 | 8:02 p.m.
Sen. David Parks
Related Document (.pdf)
Sun Coverage
CARSON CITY – In what supporters are calling a historic moment, the Assembly on Sunday night overrode the veto of Gov. Jim Gibbons on a bill giving legal rights to domestic partners.
Tod Story, a member of the board of the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Southern Nevada, said "Nevadans can stand proud."
Story said Nevada has become the 17th state to recognize the relationships of gay and lesbian couples under state law.
The law takes effect Oct. 1.
The vote Sunday night was 28-14, the bare minimum needed to overturn the decision of the governor. It follows the 14-7 vote in the Senate Saturday and puts the bill into law.
Gary Peck, executive director of the ACLU in Nevada, said “this is a proud day in Nevada’s history. With its override, our Legislature has put our state on the right side of a growing movement to honor this country’s promise that every one of us is entitled to equal treatment under the law.”
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, who gave the only speech on the floor, called this a “historic vote for equality and justice.”
“This is the most important civil rights legislation we’ve had in all my years here and I am so happy and honored to be a part of it.”
She said she knew it was “a struggle” for many legislators.
She said domestic partners “are not asking us to approve of their lives or how they live but they are asking us for respect. As citizens of this great state, they are asking that their government give them the ability to choose who they will live with and who they will love.”
Senate Bill 283 provides domestic partners the same rights in such things as community property responsibility for debt to third parties and the right to seek financial support if they split up.
The bill specifically states that a domestic partnership is not a marriage as outlined in the 2002 constitutional amendment that says a marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
The partners, whether of the same or opposite sex, would register with the Secretary of State’s Office for legal recognition. And if they split, they would file dissolution of the registration.
The bill says domestic partners have the same rights, protections and benefits that are ranged or imposed upon spouses.
The governor, in his veto message, said the voters in 2002 felt “the right of marriage should apply only to married couples, only the voters should determine whether those rights should equally apply to domestic partners.”
Voters approved that amendment 337,197 to 164,573.
Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas, the openly gay sponsor of SB283, said it's "about fairness and equality," and that it doesn't diminish the sanctity of marriage.
Voting against the bill on Sunday were Republicans John Carpenter of Elko, Chad Christensen of Las Vegas, Tyrus Cobb of Reno, Heidi Gansert of Reno, Pete Goicoechea of Eureka, Tom Grady of Yerington, Don Gustavson of Sparks, John Hambrick of Las Vegas, Joe Hardy of Boulder City, Richard McArthur of Las Vegas, James Settelmeyer of Gardnerville, Lynn Stewart and Melissa Woodbury, both of Henderson.
One Democrat, Mo Denis of Las Vegas, voted to sustain the governor’s veto. Edwin Goedhart, a Republican from Amargosa Valley voted for the override.
Discussion: 48 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Joe Perry: Steven Tyler has quit Aerosmith
- Live Main Event blog: Cada and Moon set to square off heads-up
- Judge dismisses suits blaming Las Vegas Sands for stock drop
- Freddie Roach talks tough; Manny Pacquiao backs it up
- Commercial development in Las Vegas grinding to a halt, analyst says
- Vegas area adds three resorts to elite AAA list
- Adult model alleges Las Vegas company isn’t sharing profits
- Strip sign-lighting ceremony set for Monday
- County considers suing over travel Web site room taxes
- Metro identifies officers, sergeants in 2 fatal struggles
Blogs
The Kats Report
Life in the Limelight: Wayne Newton (2 Comments)
Politics: Ralston's Flash
An entire campaign in one mail piece for Harry Reid (2 Comments)
Miech Again
On the road to Long Beach, UNLV hoops style (13 Comments)
The Kats Report
Vocal strain prompts Wayne Brady to call off 'Making It Up' until 2010
The Greene Room
New Mexico soccer player goes MMA on BYU (16 Comments)
Elsewhere
Fontainebleau suit takes aim at Soffer empire (8 Comments)
Mono puts date for Lesnar title defense in question
Calendar »
- 8 Sun
- 9 Mon
- 10 Tue
- 11 Wed
- 12 Thu
-
76 Trombones + 4 concert at Artemus Ham Hall
Artemus Ham Hall at UNLV | 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
-
The Smothers Brothers at The Orleans Showroom
The Orleans Showroom
-
Abbacadabra at The Las Vegas Hilton
Las Vegas Hilton
-
Roy Clark at The South Point Showroom
South Point Showroom
-
Zowie Bowie's Vintage Vegas Show at Monte Carlo
Lance Burton Theater
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Goodbye, Chad Christensen. You just lost my vote and I'll be making sure that you don't get reelected and also making sure that Mr. Nolan does.
I'm SO proud to be moving here! Nevada is now leading the Mountain West as the first state in the region to offer legal same-sex unions. Nevada LGBT families can finally have life a little easier, and hopefully this will be a fabulous first step toward full equality in The Silver State.
Thank you, Nevada Legislature, for doing the right thing! :-D
This is one of the proudest moments of my life. Thank you Senator David Parks for your leadership and a special thanks to the Nevada State Senate and Assembly for your unwavering support for equal rights.
I will make every effort to support re-electing every Nevada Legislator that voted FOR SB 283 and FOR over-riding the veto!
In fact, a good litmus test question for anyone running for election or re-elections could be "Do you fully support the Nevada Domestic Partnership Law?" An honest answer to that question will be a good indicator of whether, or not, we are talking to a fair minded person!
This is a historic day and this important bill is a major step forward for the GLBT community AND the straight community TOO!
There are thousands of straight people, disabled and living alone (that have been abandoned by their natural families) and, NOW, can have a dear friend that truly loves them become their legal "domestic partner" and ensure that key information is provided (allergies, medications, health history, etc.) in a crisis - and they can NOW have some sense of security and peace of mind that their wishes will be carried out - including their last wishes!
Straight people entering "domestic partnership" arrangements will save tons of money (for all of us) in limiting the cost of aide and attendance services being provided by a caring friend for free! Have you thought about that?
It is no one's business what sort of legal relationship the neighbors have, or what they are doing (or, not doing) in their bedrooms!
I have experienced terrible discrimination as an advocate trying to just do the right thing for a dear friend (that had no family), and disabled veteran, in the emergency room of a hospital! It was not until we got him to a hospital in California that my "role" was recognized without any hassles! Many hospital staff assumed we were gay, and made statements of support for equality - it wasn't until he was released from the hospital that we told them all the truth, "We're the best of good friends, fellow combat Vets, former Army Medics AND STRAIGHT!" You should have seen how their mouths dropped and they laughed with us out loud! It really put the entire issue in context and a much broader focus for all!
We have put the small, narrow minded, bigots, haters and hypocrites in their place - into the past and historical trash pile!
I am so disappointed with the budget band-aide, but I am so proud of State Senator David Parks, the GLBT community and the many straight allies that came together to win this victory - KUDOS to ALL!
We're having a celebration at the Eagle bar off of Tropicana on Wednesday night. Let's have a big crowd on Wednesday night to memorialize this wonderful victory. Wednesday is also the regular "underwear night" at the Eagle, so I'm sure it will be packed. So get ready to have fun, and let's just dance the night away....
Thanks to Senator Dennis Nolan for taking a courageous stand for civil rights; he just earned thousands of new votes in his re-election campaign. Well done!
I agree with the previous comments that Assemblyman Chad Christensen should prepare for retirement.
He has inspired many voters to rally behind anyone who chooses to run against him.
Nevada's future for economic development, tourism and quality of life is brighter today.
This brings a big sigh of relief to many seniors (hetero)living together without marriage so as not to lose their incomes, but losing out on the benefits of being a couple.
Gibbons should slither away into the desert.
Hallelujah! More love, less exclusion, more understanding, less biblical literalism! Praise the Lord, oh my soul!!!!
Yeah, this settles it... I'm moving to Nevada :)
Senator Parks should run for Governor.
Truly an outstanding moment for civil rights in the state of Nevada!
Bravo, Nevada Legislature, for accomplishing what few of us thought possible. Thousands of Nevada families thank you for this historic leap forward in equality!
I'm off to write letters of gratitude to those who voted to override Gibbons' irrelevancy.
Comment removed by staff.
Majority of Democrats and Republicans in Nevada already said NO to gay marriage. Bad mistake for any legislator who voted yes for this gay marriage bill, ESPECIALLY the fake Republicans like Nolan and Goedhart.
Why does Carson City waste time with dumb bills when the gay population in Nevada is so small and irrelevant? Anyway, this will lose in court. Nice try though.
@Sun Down
Why can't you grasp the fact that THIS IS NOT MARRIAGE?
When it wins in court / doesn't get a court date, I hope you don't get suicidal.
@delcamp2
Hypochristian? DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU.
Thank you for making the right decision. Best news i've heard all week.
Definitely makes up for the whole Prop. 8 nightmare.
P.S.:Sucks to be a sore loser,doesn't it,Sun Down?
Sun Down:
Please explain what standing anyone would have to take this to court.
I just love how Republican politicians who don't fall in lock-step with their base get called RINO or fake Republicans. Please, keep it up. I'm enjoying the implosion of the Republican party!
"Why does Carson City waste time with dumb bills when the gay population in Nevada is so small and irrelevant?"
Sun Down -- apparently you are unclear on the concept of equality. Look it up some time. Then I recommend you find and read "Watermelon Man," then contemplate the good karma that allowed you to think what you think and say what you say.
Congratulations Senator Parks, and Kudos to the Legislature.
It's about time Nevada took the high road.
I have always thought of Nevada as just the place I happen to live. It's never occurred to me to think, "I'm proud to be a Nevadan."
But today, I am.
Nevada wins! Proud day to be part of this great state.
The only problem I have with this issue and why it could be overturned if it were to go to court is that this is basically saying the state disagrees with the peoples vote. Just because it's not being called marriage doesn't change anything. Don't get me wrong, if a vote was put out I would vote in favor of gay marriage, but I would understand that more than twice of the state voters didn't want it.
If the people voted against a new tax and then the legislature passed a new law requiring you to pay the same "tax" but they called it something different how would you react?
Finally, does anyone know how gay couples enter and leave domestic partnerships under this law? Are they required to get liscenses? Divorce?
tol-
No, it won't be. The 2002 Amendment only banned marriage, NOT DP benefits. Unless the NV courts are totally wacko and braindead, I suspect they'll make the same statement that the CA Supreme Court recently made that this law allows gay & lesbian couples to enter into legally recognized relationships with all the benefits of marriage... But since it's not called marriage, it can't violate the law.
And btw, I hope NV will soon see a campaign like the one in CA to overturn the marriage ban. I know there's plenty more work to be done here, but I'm hopeful we'll soon have the votes to make it happen.
Can you say "separate but equal"? I knew you could.
I am not against same-sex marriages. I really don't care what happens in anyone's bedroom but mine. But I do believe this bill will put true civil rights equality on hold for at least 20yrs, if not set it back that far. Personally, I think there should be no consideration whatsoever of the genders involved for a marriage. With this bill, we now have a new relationship defined that is not a marriage but is not a shack-up, either. Divorce attorneys are going to have a field day with this.
At least they got it right insomuch as it applies to opposite-sex as well as same-sex arrangements. I would have been even more upset with this approach had it been for same-sex only.
When will people learn that the real solution is to take all religious context out of state licensed marriages?
Gays get their rights, marriage remains between a man and a woman, both sides win!
You got to give a little to get a little. Nothing wrong with compromise.
boftx-
Oh, I totally agree that we need civil marriage equality. Hopefully with the CA Prop H8 case going into the federal courts, we'll one day see an end to these ugly and discriminatory state marriage bans nationwide. Let's just remember, however, that Nevada's just gone from nothing to full and comprehensive DP rights. This IS progress, especially for a non-coastal state. Other than Iowa, no other inland state has any legal recognition for same-sex couples.
So let's celebrate today... And yes, let's keep up the good work in Nevada and nationwide until we have full equality for LGBT people.
Just like the gays in California, the people of Nevada should demand to take this issue to court or bring it up in a future vote. I like how people tie in seniors and straight people who live together but can't get the same rights as a married couple. So your shack up pard won't marry you? Wonder why. Seniors live together out of wedlock? Forget the morals it is all about the money. How much is this bill going to cost the government, the taxpayers? We will see. This is just an excuse to attempt to make deviant behavior seem normal, and to bring gay marriage to the state. Sad day for Nevada indeed.
In the spirit of equality for all - in this case upsetting everyone equally - I'm going to say that I agree with the CA court. Prop 8, distasteful as it might be, was a legal ballot measure passed by the voters in CA. It would be horribly wrong for the court to overturn that. At the same time, the decision to let the existing marriages stand was also correct.
What is really needed, in my opinion, is a SCOTUS ruling that clearly says that in the eyes of the law all people are equal, period. There is no need for any new ammendment to do this, and it would NOT require judicial activism. The words are already there in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the 14th Ammendment, and many other state constitutions. (This is especially true of Nevada's, and in that case I do see Prop 2 as a contradiction to Article 1.)
No, I see no reason or need to celebrate this half-baked legal loophole. Instead, we should repeal Prop 2 and take the words of the Nevada State Constitution at face value.
And atdleft, I would change your final sentence to read like this: "... let's keep up the good work in Nevada and nationwide until we have full equality for *all* people."
tol123 -- you sound convincing but you're wrong. Constitutions guarantee equal treatment, the bedrock of civil rights. Taxes are a totally different thing. Our courts are duty-bound to protect minorities from majorities where equality is concerned.
boftx -- what you're talking about with "shacking up" is what's been around for centuries, common law marriages. You shun the ceremonies and trappings and licensings and just be married without any of that.
Hopefully, the Nevada Supreme Court will rule this law to be unconstitutional since the voters wrote an amendment outlawing laws such as this, back in 2002. This law is a travesty of justice.
"Hopefully, the Nevada Supreme Court will rule this law to be unconstitutional since the voters wrote an amendment outlawing laws such as this, back in 2002. This law is a travesty of justice."
afveteran -- Is your screen blank in the Discussion section or are you just illiterate?? Besides proving you are completely oblivious of any but the Athenian concept of "justice," only a Klansman would find your post other than nearly indescribable bigotry.
killer8:
Both in Nevada's and in California's Constitution it specifically bans gay marriage.
One can not say that a state's constitution is unconstitutional within itself no matter how blue in the face you turn.
That is like saying the 2nd admendent to the US Constitution is unconstitutional within the US Constitution.
I hope you get it now.
SgtRock -- we've been over this already too many times. READ the Constitutions, starting with Nevada's original Declaration of Rights. It's all right there at the beginning of Article I. Equality is promised, and it's not subject to the Herd's current fad.
Your Second Amendment point is childish and shows you are completely ignorant of its origin and purpose.
You just do not get it.
NEVADA'S CONSTITUTION EXPLICITLY BANS GAYS MARRIAGE.
You get it now!!!!!!!!!
You can't call part of the Nevada's Constitution ....unconstitutional.
One part of the Nevada Constitution can't declare another part of the Nevada Constitution as unconstitutional.
"You can't call part of the Nevada's Constitution ....unconstitutional."
SgtRock -- I just did. Hint: the federal Constitution's Eighteenth Amendment
"One part of the Nevada Constitution can't declare another part of the Nevada Constitution as unconstitutional."
And you base that bold statement on what, exactly?
SgtRock -- correction. Make that the Twenty-First Amendment.
Killer8: I thought you were saying that the Nevada Constitution prohibits the Nevada Constitution from banning gay marriage.
If you are saying that the US Federal Constitution is prohibiting the Nevada Constitution from banning gay marriage than that is a different story.
That is your opinion.
Federal courts has ruled as recently as a few years ago that US Federal Constitution does not bar states from banning gay marriage.
So I guess you have a dispute with those federal judges.
Originally the US Federal Constitution was suppose to be a limiting presense for the Federal government only and did not apply to states.
That has changed over time and has become more messy.
For instance, Obama's recent nominee to the Supreme Court feels that the 2nd admenment in the Bill of Rights does not bar states from totally banning guns.
I guess you have a problem with Obama's choice.
sgtrock/jfnance..... you are truly learning disabled. let it go. people do not agree with you and you are not going to change their mind. get off your soapbox pick it up and just go away. why do you care so mch about this you bonehead?????????????????????????????????????
i think you made a statement before in one of you speaches that you agreed that domestic partnerships were ok in your mind?, now what is wrong.
at least change your name again so we don't know who you are.
maybe you could be "cowboy32", that would be a good name for you. from now on i will refer to you as cowboy 32
'
oh~!, transam1986, it is always a sad day for people who discriminate so i guess everyday is a bad day for you. i would really like to sit face to face with some of these bigots to find out if they have ever known what it feels like to be diccriminated against.
No one has answered on how you enter in and out of these domestic partnerships. Am I missing that info somewhere? Do you need a liscense? Do you get divorced? When you seperate does your partner get half of you stuff?
In Section 8, the bill states that domestic partnerships less than 5 years old can be dissolved by mutual agreement for a fee to be determined by the Secretary of State, not to exceed the administrative cost of disolving the domestic partnership.
If the domestic partnership is over 5 years old, there are children, community property, or only one party wants to dissolve the domestic partnership, find a lawyer.
"Federal courts has ruled as recently as a few years ago that US Federal Constitution does not bar states from banning gay marriage."
SgtRock -- either provide a case cite or keep proving your ignorance.
The 14th Amendment's Section 1 completely contradicts what you said.
haha Gibbons is an idiot.
killer8: "SgtRock -- either provide a case cite or keep proving your ignorance."
I will prove your ignorance which is very easy to do.
Do you want some sugar to go with this crow?
2006 - "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit reverses a lower court ruling holding that Nebraska's ban against against same-sex marriage was an unconstitutional violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and deprived gays and lesbians of their First Amendment Rights. The appeals court also rejects the U.S. District Court's ruling that Nebraska's law was unconstitutional for "singling out gays and lesbians for legislative punishment. "
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/glrts...
I guess you should have argued the case before the 8th District Court of Appeals. You could have impressed them with your knowledge on positive law.
Just a helpful hint, before putting out a challenge...it is a good thing to do a quick google search. Its prevents egg hitting your face.
SgtRock -- there is no crow here. I do my research on subjects like this on Versuslaw, not Google. That way I read the actual case and how it's held up with the courts' peers, not some reporter's dumbed down version.
The 8th Circuit ruling in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning was not based on either the Nevada Constitution, at issue here, nor was it strictly based on the Fourteenth Amendment, since the court opted for a lower "rational basis" standard of review rather than the heightened level of judicial scrutiny that Amendment can demand.
In other words that three-judge panel did not want to bet their future job security on blazing a new trail on the issue, and deferred instead for the U.S. Supreme Court to make a final decision on the subject.
It's also worth noting the 9th Circuit -- the one Nevada and the rest of the west coast is in -- has not cited that 8th Circuit case. Technically it doesn't even apply here. I'd love to hear Kozinski weigh in on this issue.
With the recent California Supreme Court opting out on the equality issue as well, hopefully the proponents issue will head for the high court and get a fair hearing and a final determination there.
Ordinary people like me just read the black and white promises in Constitutions and wonder where our rights went, including equality. Having researched law for many years, and been an unfortunate participant in several cases, I have little faith in what the courts do, unlike you. Like the rest of government the courts are far off their leashes.
And if you keep getting personal with me I'm going to start ignoring you again, jfnance32. Your jabs like suggesting I should have "argued the case before the 8th District Court of Appeals" and the egg thing is just childish. None of this is about winning anything, it's about opinions, that's all.
killer8:
"and the egg thing is just childish"
Don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house.
So when you make statements like this: "either provide a case cite or keep proving your ignorance"......please do not whine about childish statements.
"In other words that three-judge panel did not want to bet their future job security on blazing a new trail on the issue, and deferred instead for the U.S. Supreme Court to make a final decision on the subject"
Yes, they did not want to make new "law" and were relying on past court judgements like good judges should do. I seriously doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court will deem gay marriage as a right anytime soon and it will very hard for the Supreme Court to decide such a case anyway if a case never gets appealed to that level.
Even the precious lib 9th Circuit is not taking in gay marriage related cases.
Did you really read the US Constitution? Did you skip over that section where it says the government can suspend habeas corpus?
SgtRock/jfnance32 -- we've been over this in your past incarnation. I'm finished with you now.
Why equality and justice is such a hard concept for some of you to grasp is what is most questionable here.
What you all, the proponents of this new law, fail to understand is just how damaging this is to the institutions of both marriage & democracy.
You make these claims calling for "equal rights" with hetero couples, insisting that to do otherwise is descrimination; and shout who are we to impose our "morals" on gay couples? Well, then why not polygamy? Why not allow a man to marry 2 women, or 5 (assuming he can afford them)? Why not allow family members to marry, or someone to marry their pet for the health benefits of an ailing cat?
In EACH of those instances those people could make the exact same argument that proponents of this bill could make - "we want equal rights", "who are you to impose your morals on me?" etc. And if you are NOT in favor of multiple person, under age, or inter-species marriage then why is YOUR brand of biggotry or your insistance on denying people their equal "rights" ok, but not mine?
This is the question NO gay activist, or same sex marriage proponent can answer. Because as soon as they go down that path of explaining away the redefining of marriage for themselves, they quickly realize there is no end to its redefinition.
In terms of its' damaging democracy - the voters of this state made it clear in a legal & binding referendum how they feel about same sex couples "rights" whether it is marriage or counterfeit marriage, and yet a hanful of people in Carson City took it upon themselves to override that decision. That is oligarchial abuse at its worst.
And by the way - marriage is a legally recognized, regulated, binding contract, liscensed by the states. It is NOT a RIGHT. No more then a drivers license is a "right", or license to practice medicine is a "right." We don't give drivers licesnses to blind people, or allow the mentally insane to practice medicine. Both instances may involve a person "being born that way", but they do not have a "right" to drive nor be a doctor.
I know people whom struggled in the REAL Civil Rights era ... this is NOT that.