Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleNevada’s gay marriage ban in constitutional limbo
Prop 8 ruling may spur AG to weigh in on voter-approved law
Thursday, Aug. 26, 2010 | 2 a.m.
Catherine Cortez Masto
Related stories
- Somewhere along the way, did risk-taking Nevada lose its edge? (2-22-10)
- With veto override, domestic partners bill becomes law (5-31-2009)
- Spurned by Nevada, transgender woman to wed in California (5-14-2009)
- Experts: No change in sight for state’s gay marriage ban (4-10-2000)
- Bill to extend rights to same-sex couples advances (4-9-09)
- After Iowa ruling, LV churches take differing views on gay marriage (4-6-2009)
- Bill would give gays same rights as married couples (3-16-2009)
- Outing supporters of anti-gay groups (12-16-2008)
Sun Coverage
When Nevada’s constitutional officers are sworn in, they pledge that they will “support, protect and defend” two constitutions, the United States’ and Nevada’s.
But what happens when the two don’t agree?
Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto finds herself potentially stuck between the governing documents on the issue of gay marriage.
And those on both sides of the volatile debate say she should wade into the legal fight in their favor.
There was outrage and celebration in California this month when a federal judge overturned the state’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. But as the case is appealed, first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and then, almost inevitably, to the U.S. Supreme Court, there’s a strong likelihood that higher court rulings could affect other states’ prohibitions.
Nevada voters in 2000 and 2002 voted to change the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
That represents the argument that the state’s top attorney should defend the state’s constitution.
But on the other side are those who say California’s Proposition 8 and bans such as Nevada’s, violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Aug. 4 that Proposition 8 was unconstitutionally discriminatory and lacked a rational basis for becoming law.
Cortez Masto, a Democrat who’s running for re-election, acknowledged that the case has the potential to change Nevada’s voter-approved ban.
Her spokesman, Edie Cartwright, said, “We’re still reviewing the judge’s order. We have not made a decision yet about weighing in.”
Lee Rowland, northern coordinator of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, noted that elected officials have to uphold both the state and federal constitutions.
“Sometimes they conflict,” she said.
In this case, the ACLU says the federal constitution should trump the provision passed by Nevada voters.
“The purpose of the constitution is to protect unpopular minorities from having their rights taken away by a popular vote,” Rowland said. “That’s precisely what the Proposition 8 decision did.”
Those on the other side of the debate say Cortez Masto should foremost defend the state constitution and the provision passed by voters.
“Obviously the attorney general and the governor’s jobs are to uphold the laws and constitutions of the state,” said Richard Ziser, who headed the successful Nevada proposition.
Ziser, chairman of the socially conservative Nevada Concerned Citizens, said his group asked Cortez Masto this year to measure the issue. “She wrote back and said she didn’t think it was necessary,” Ziser said.
Mike Ginsburg, Southern Nevada director of the liberal Progressive Leadership Alliance, said, “We would love for the AG to weigh in. But typically, there’s so much going on in Nevada, our plates are full with a lot of other things.”
Tom McAffee, a professor of constitutional law at Boyd Law School at UNLV, said it is inevitable that the Supreme Court will consider gay marriage bans.
He acknowledged that states’ attorneys general could have standing to file briefs.
But not that Cortez Masto should, given the high emotions voters have on the issue.
“If I was attorney general, I would not feel the obligation to weigh in at all, unless I had some pressing political reason to do so,” he said. “If I was her political adviser, I’d just tell her to sit this one out.”
Discussion: 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. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Superstar Whitney Houston dies at 48
- Two dead after accident in downtown Las Vegas
- Instant Analysis: Debating whether UNLV should continue series with San Diego State
- Color from the scene at Thomas & Mack Center: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
- UNLV can move forward without the burden of losing streak to San Diego State
- A wife’s wisdom shows birth control issue needn’t be divisive
- UNLV makes key plays down stretch to hold off San Diego State 65-63
- Vegas oddsmaker expects Adele to have a great night at Grammys
- Utah welcomes competing Lake Tahoe bid for 2022 Olympics
- Mitt Romney wins Maine caucuses, CPAC straw poll
Blogs
The Kats Report
Color from scene at Thomas & Mack: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
South Point owner Michael Gaughan's take on 'Vegas Stripped': 'I'll give it an 8' (4 Comments)
Author relishes writing the life story of ‘larger-than-life’ Oscar Goodman (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Landowner: All roads could lead to Uxbridge casino
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Reid supported Nevada's ban on gay marriage.
He has never regretted it either.
And Angle is supported by "Christian Reconstructionists" that want gay people DEAD! And she still hasn't apologized for it!
How about staying on topic for a change? Question 2 is obviously on shaky Constitutional ground. How can a state deny the fundamental right of marriage to a loving couple? For all the "tea party" talk of loving The Constitution so much, how come they never remember the 14th Amendment?
Comment removed by moderator. Off-topic.
Imagine all those swanky foreclosed homes being gobbled up by gay couples.
Whether you are "for" or "against" gay marriage is really irrevelant, as we have the 14th Amendment which provides equal protection under the law. The citizenry cannot vote certain rights away from a particular group because they don't like them or what they stand for. That's what happened with the anti-miscegination laws. Even up until 1968, 72% of the population was against blacks and whites being allowed to marry legally.
Voting out the rights for gays and lesbians would open a whole new can of worms. Would the right to marry then be denied between blacks and whites, christians and non-christians, older and younger? There would be no end to the groups that could be denied not only marriage rights, but other rights as well, just because someone doesn't like them.
People: the 14th Amendment trumps EVERYTHING. Please read it.
Reid supported the ban on gay marriage and still does.
He has not regretted that decision unlike the anchor babies bill that he once pushed. He said that was the worst decision in his life. I guess his gay ban decision is OK and not his worst decision or even a bad decision in his eyes.
Is Reid a bigot?
Who cares if gay people can get married or not? I have a hard time believing the argument that gays threaten marriage when the same people who spout this never complain about shows like "Wife Swap". I guess to opponents matrimony isn't about monogamy or loyalty at all...
I don't believe that most people have a problem with same-sex marriages at all. What I do believe is that religious "leaders" and others who rally against gay marriage only do so because they see it as a cash-cow opportunity to get money from their congregations by using the old formula of creating a false crusade, and then beg and demand money from people to finance their fight. All while skimming a significant portion of money for themselves...
Most people always fail to realize this as the confuse their faith to their religion with faith to their pastors/priests/bishops/preachers/etc. Christianity is a fine religion with many great teachings. But as such it's important to follow Christ's teachings rather than the money-making, false doctrines of those who claim to be working in his service, but are really fulfilling their own needs of money and power. Same could be said of any religion though. Just look at how Islam went from being one of the world's most peaceful, prosperous religions that advanced modern mathematics and science, and in modern times is now nothing more than hate-fueled and keeps it's members purposefully illiterate. What happened? Leaders with their own agendas took over in the name of being "fundamental"...
Typical media, stirring the pot instead of reporting actual news.
@DMCVEGAS:
Very well stated. My feelings exactly.
renomuse,
The Sun did report the news. I guess since you did not have anything intelligent to say you are the one stirring the pot here.
Gay marriage does not effect anyone but the gays but to many feel they have the right to tell others how they must live to fit in "their world."
It is time people stop worrying about what others are doing as long as they forcing their views and lifestyles upon you.
Once this law hits the top courts it will be over turned. Might as well get used to it now.
You know it's just a little funny how the liberals agree that one federal judge can over rule 7 million California voters. But on the other hand it's those very same liberals that where whining about the 5-4 vote that the US. Supreme Court handed down that gave George Bush the White House back in the 2000 election. And it those very same liberals that did not like the 5-4 vote that incorporated your right to own a gun into the fourteenth amendment as well. HYPOCRITES!!!!!
If marriage is such a "sacred" issue, maybe we ought ban divorce.
Really, who cares? The only people who care whether gays can marry are the same ones that think blacks are responsible for aids.
Anyone who uses the 14th amendment is already wrong. If it applied then Harry Reid would could have no more power than any 1st term senator i.e. seniority cannot count as this would make one state more powerful than one another based on election patterns.
The constitutional change in Nevada only defined marriage as currently and historically known. If you use the Liberal/progressive version, then marriage within NAMBLA and polygamy as well as to dogs and goats will have to be legal as well.
I must admit that I personaly think that polygamy should be legal.
vegaslee: "Gay marriage does not effect anyone but the gays but to many feel they have the right to tell others how they must live to fit in "their world." You said it all and quite well. Personally, I think all marriages should be gay...oh, I guess we can't use that word to define merriment and happiness anymore.
Or, if we can, does that mean all happy marriages could also be considered "gay." Oh dear, it's all so confusing and absolutely none of anyone's business who anyone marries.
nez212,
Children, dogs and goats are not consenting adults.
People that use that dog and goat argument have no common sense and bring that up out of fear and ignorance.
What does it really matter to you if two women or two men are married?
Nez, goats?? That is such a fallacious argument. Really, other than you, who would want a goat for a spouse?
Reid and Obama are against same sex marriage.
I am all for it. It is dumb to think that letting Gays marry will harm our social fabric.
We let straight people marry and that hasn't turned out so great.
Murray, believe me, divorce is a good thing.
"Nevada voters in 2000 and 2002 voted to change the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. That represents the argument that the state's top attorney should defend the state's constitution."
Actually one doesn't need to go as far as the federal Constitution for this. The solution is right there in Nevada's 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[.]"
The conflict is in Section 21's recent addition as a part of that same Article, and in conflicts like this natural rights (the source of equality) must prevail. Because the purpose of government is protect the rights of individuals -- "Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people" (Section 2) -- all that's really needed is for Nevada's courts to clarify it. Funny thing is it's taken this long for this conflict to come to a head.
NVCitizen -- excellent points. Do note as recent as last year a southern justice of the peace refused to perform a marriage for a mixed race couple, citing that standard lame government excuse "it's for the kids."
"Anyone who uses the 14th amendment is already wrong."
nez212 -- you're completely wrong. Back to Nevada's version of the Bill of Rights (Article I), Section 2 clarifies this point for you: "...the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States..." The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago finally clarified the 14th Amendment's legitimacy.
Your comments about marriage with kids and animals, etc., is at best ignorant.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac H Tiffany (1819)
"If you have a RIGHT to gay marry, or straight marry, then you have a RIGHT to marry polygamy, or marry inter-species."
gbigs -- how you can be at all relevant here when you can't seem to discern between the marriage rights of people and animals?
"[Our] principles [are] founded on the immovable basis of equal right and reason." -- Thomas Jefferson, to James Sullivan, 1797.
"If there is a RIGHT to marriage, which is not now the case, there is no limit to a RIGHT, a RIGHT is a RIGHT."
Of course there are limits to rights. We have the right to free expression, but it is limited in that you may not make threats against the President, cannot defame someone, cannot commit libel/slander, etc.
Your understanding of constitutional principles needs some depth, gbigs.
getalife: Ain't nothin' like a good divorce, and "Reid and Obama are against same sex marriage," publicly anyway.
gbigs: If we could get rid of that contract part too, divorce would be a lot easier and alimony too.
I wish someone could explain to me why the devil this is such a big issue. It seems to me that there are many more challenges in this city, state, nation and the world to be concerned about who marries who, yet we go off on these tangents and don't get the big stuff resolved.
gbigs....In 1967 (Loving v Virginia), the SCOTUS declared marriage to be "one of the basic civil rights of man."
gbigs -- there's so many flaws in your reasoning on this it's hard to know where to begin, but surprisingly there's some points I agree with you.
Let's start with the nature of a "right," which Jefferson covered in the Declaration of Independence -- that all of us are born equal with certain unalienable rights like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" -- which the state exists to protect. We're each born with those rights just because we're born human.
The bottom line is that at some time within the first century after this republic was constituted We the People bought into the myth one of the most basic freedoms of man can be licensed. It's all been downhill from there, as we see now.
"Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions." -- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (striking down that state's anti-homosexual laws)
Nevada law specifically defines "marriage" as a civil contract and no religious ritual is required to validate that contract. Thus, I ask two questions. Why should 2 consenting adults, regardless of gender, be prohibited from entering into ANY civil contract because someone else objects, regardless of the reason? Will we next have laws prohibiting a same-sex couple from entering into the civil contract commonly called a "mortgage?"
EqualRights: "In 1967 (Loving v Virginia), the SCOTUS declared marriage to be "one of the basic civil rights of man." I like that, so only men can get married.
Are people who supported Nevada's ban on gay marriage...bigots?
gbigs..."There is no right to marriage, and there is no FEDERAL jurisdiction over marriage."
First, as I noted earlier, in 1967 the SCOTUS called marriage a "basic civil right." Second, using your logic, not only is the Federal DOMA law illegal, but the Federal government should also recognize same-sex marriages granted in the states where such civil contracts are legal.
I'm suprised that Sgtrock is a supporter of the gay marriage movement ..butt .. on second thought I only know him by his on line comments so perhaps he is really upset because he hasn't been able to act on his true desires!
As for KillerB's incessent rants where he quotes the constitution I suspect that he could use it to justify any [and every] radical position he chooses to hold!
I know I know I'm irrelevent!
Funny how those of us that are deemed irrevelent by the mighty Killer seem to usually be in the majority!
How much money would gay marriages bring to the city in ceremonies and parties at resorts? It's gotta be more than 10 million a year.
It's 2010. We are in a depression. We need to consider money as the top issue.
Sarge, wow, this is going to sound strange coming from me, but a great quote: "Are people who supported Nevada's ban on gay marriage...bigots?"
A veteran of several marriages, I'm not sure if I support marriage at all.
gbigs...It is you who ignores the facts. Yes, states issue the civil contracts. However, by refusing to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in some states, the Federal government is most certainly exercising jurisdiction.
Also, the Federal government does indeed have jurisdiction, although not in an obvious manner. The SCOTUS ruled in Marbury v Madison that a Federal court can strike down any state law or portion of a state constitution if that law or part of a constitution violates the Federal Constitution. Put another way, a state can grant MORE civil rights than are allowed under the Federal Constitution, but a state cannot offer FEWER civil rights, e.g., a state cannot refuse to allow women the vote.
See my 10:15 am post and try answering those questions.
"I know I know I'm irrelevent! Funny how those of us that are deemed irrevelent by the mighty Killer seem to usually be in the majority!"
pmmart -- 'nuff said on that, except what you call "the majority" is just the herd to me. And you're fun to mess with.
So many of you seem to miss the point -- one's exercise of fundamental liberties does NOT require your approval. And that you can't wrap your minds around the fact you lack the right to control what consenting adults do in private pretty much says all that needs to be said about you.
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." -- Arthur C. Clarke
"Nearly 150,000 same-sex couples reported being in marriage relationships last year, many more than the number of actual weddings and civil unions, according to the first U.S. census figures released on same-sex marriages," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22....
You are supposed to keep your church and state separate. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's". Right from the very lips of Jesus Christ Messiah himself. Jesus never discriminated against anybody. Jesus never condemned anyone either. He was the first in line to help the lowest of the low. Those sick with disease, the tax collectors, the prostitutes, the blind, and many many more who were in dear need of help and who were seriously hated on and despised by the people who were better off in Jerusalem and all Israel. (Sound familiar?) What happened was mainstream Christianity; which is run by "man" and not by the holy ghost seemed to veer off the path of what really is glorious and righteous. Coming close to God and the savior with their lips but their hears are far from him. Many Christians will go to church on Sunday but on Monday on their commute to work they are already back at cussing and using the lords name in vain on the first car that cuts them off.
I say Legalize Gay marriage and keep it legal. To continue to use religion to discriminate on what you think are lesser people is not only morally wrong, it's illegal. The Constitution says it's illegal. It's unconstitutional. And it's also hypocritical. The Bible says "Do not judge one another". "Remove the thorn from your own eye first before you tell your brethren to remove the one from his.
These people just want the same rights as anybody else. Nobody wants to be a "second class citizen". They deserve the same hospital visitation rights and tax credits as all other straight couples do. Don't discriminate! They are not even getting married in "your" Church anyway in the first place. It's a state court marriage so you can leave your religion out of it. Keep your religion and your state courts SEPARATE.
Based on my reading of the news it appears there is some possibility that the 9th Court might dismiss the appeal because of lack of standing by the group appealing the decision since the state has declined to appeal. The irony would be that Prop 8 could be overturned based on a conservative Supreme Court's efforts to greatly restrict the concept of standing in making appeals. However, if this occurs the district court ruling will be limited to California, but could be allowed to stand without having to go to the Supreme Court - or the Supreme Court would need to find a way to reverse themselves on the legal issue of standing to allow the appeal to proceed. So the issue of gay marriages could get resolved piece by piece by courts issuing opinions that don't get appealed because of legal technicalities created by a conservative court to prevent activism in legal rulings. Oh what a web we weave....
Ya know sompin Killer?
This old world is full of people who think/thought that they were better than the rest of us poor S.O.B.s.
Folks like Hitler, Genghis Khan, Alex the great ,Chairman Mao,Napoleon , Stalin , Lenin toss in a few Roman Emperors and excuse me for leaving your name out .. but .. you know what happened to them [for the most part?]
The majority [that you enjoy belittling] got weary of them and the world barely remembers that they were ever here and these fine folks aren't even going to remember [or care] that you and I were ever here!
Perhaps I should have started by saying that this old world is full of the GRAVES of ....... and I have purchased my 4' by 6' plot well in advance.
gbigs..."Gays have the SAME rights as do straights." False. In the majority of states, it is perfectly legal to deny housing, credit, or employment simply because the applicant is gay.
SCOTUS might not sustain Prop. 8. The implications would rock the foundations of the Fourteenth Amendment, and I doubt very much that is desired by SCOTUS. As conservative as the Court may be, they have not been particularly friendly to "States Rights". I think we will see 6 - 3 to overturn Prop. 8.
"But since it is, the honest issue is not about rights, its about SOME gays that want to rub the word marriage into the faces of the religions they believe diss them."
Now you're an expert on the gay point-of-view? There's a few states where gay marriage is legal, and I haven't seen any reports of malicious gay couples rubbing anything "into the faces of religions."
Gays definitely do not have the same rights as straights. Whereas I could serve in the military without breaking the honor code, my wife's gay brother could not. The military's honor code forbids lying.
Furthermore, marriages performed in the states between members of the opposite sex are recognized by the Federal government, whereas same-sex marriages are not.
Then you have to traverse the waters between a civil union, a domestic partnership and a marriage. Those are not three equivalent agreements, gbigs.
"and same sex couples get domestic partner treatment accross [sic] the board."
No, they definitely do not. Federally, they're seen as two individual and unrelated people.
gbigs..."Gays are protected BY FEDERAL EEO, and same sex couples get domestic partner treatment accross the board." Wrong again. The Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA), was first introduced in Congress in 1994 and has NEVER been enacted. And leading the opposition have been, not surprisingly, the GOP and the Catholic Church. And here is a quote from the United States Equal Opportunity Commission's web site (note that NO mention is made of sexual orientation)..."Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information...."
Former GOP chairman Ken Mehlman came out today as a gay man, a Republican who was so self loathing that he inflicted much harm to our state constitutions and freedom loving American people. The best he can do is say "I'm sorry" and he will now work to overturn prop 8...too little, maybe too late.
I should remind people that nothing about what the California judge did was an infingment on your own right to marry. In a functioning democracy the judicial system acts as an interpreter of the constitution to protect the rights of a minority from the tyranny of a majority. If all of our civil rights were put to a vote of the people, at any point in our history blacks might still be slaves. Or at least "seperate but equal" would still be the law of the land. And women still might not be able to vote or to be treated equally in the workplace. You yourself, may not have been able to vote unless you were a landowner. Your own right to marry is secured. What this good judge did was to look at existing law to see if people were being harmed. They found that gays and lesbians,. many in long term relationships, were indeed being discrimiated against because they were not allowed access to the same benefits as you are when you marry. Congratulating ANY couple who has been partnered for 17 years, like Robert and me, is an act of human descency and is the best example of the civility we have always prided ourselves on as being Americans. As human beings we become enlightened as we learn more about the world around us and the different people who inhabit it. As Americans we have always done that , as individuals and collectivly as a nation. That's what made us so great. That is why for most of our nation's history the world admired and looked to us for leadership. Thanks to California, at least for now, many Americans may not have to leave our country to marry like Robert and I did. when we wed in Candada, Sen Ensign, Sen. Vitter, Former Sen. Larry Craig, Gov. Sanford and MANY others had nothing better to do than to raise money and secure votes off the backs of couples like Robert and myself.
AND...just so you know, Robert and I DO NOT BELIEVE in a so-called seperation of church and state. That's NOT in the constitution...it's BOGUS. What we DO have here is religious FREEDOM! The founding fathers were religious, the American people are religious...all to the good. BUT NO ONE RELIGION IS SUPERIOR TO ANOTHER HERE IN THE U.S.A.!! Why should a Jewish Orthodox synagogue or the Catholic Church tell an LDS or Episcoplaian church or a reform Jewish temple what to do?! Marriage liscences are CIVIL and chuches should be FREE to marry who they want.
Thanks for th grief you caused us , Mr. Mehlman. Good luck trying to fix it.
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall Las Vegas, NV 89142
If it's not an issue, let them marry.
howdydostu: Wow, what a post. So it's clear, I absolutely believe one should be able to marry whomever one pleases. I abhor the idea of "gay marriage," marriage to me is "marriage," whether it's same sex or not. I was born and raised in an area that at the was probably the largest gay community in the nation and I was taught, or maybe just absorbed the notion that we were all the same.
Congratulations on your partnership, which, by the way, is significantly longer than any of my marriages, however, not as long as that of my oldest friend and his partner: 30+ years, but I'm sure you'll get there.
Thank you for such an interesting, informative and intellectually based post. On the other hand, whenever I think of marriage of any sort, I recall what Oscar Wilde said: "Bigamy is having one husband or wife too many. Monogamy is the same."
Mr Gbigs, My friend and neighbor,
Robert and I have been partnered for 17 years.
We walk the walk and talk the talk. If you would take a moment to read my post above you will see that we have NO animous towards religion...we believe in religious freedom.
The facts are this:
Marriage comes with 1060 rights. You named 6 important ones.
I CAN'T claim Robert on my federal 1040. I CAN'T go to my employer, a gaming company, and add Robert as a beneficiary...even though some of my fellow straight co-workers "married" just for the company benefits. And even if my employer would (some do) I would have to declare the value of the health benefit ($9000.00) as additional income and have to pay the taxes on it! There is so much more.
We honor and value marriage, maybe more so than people who take the right for granted.
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142
"And even if my employer would (some do) I would have to declare the value of the health benefit ($9000.00) as additional income and have to pay the taxes on it!" The IRS calls this "imputed income" and you pay tax on money you never see. A bill has been languishing in the US House for several years to repeal this IRS rule, but the GOP consistently has blocked the bill.
gbigs..."YET? the gays attacked the Mormons whom they do not share any agenda with." Huh? It was the millions of dollars that Mormons poured into that election that was largely responsible for Prop 8 passing.
gbigs..."Gays have all the contract, EEO, hospital visitattion, survior, ability to make wills, and convenants, live where they want, work where they want, rights as anyone else except illegals." Huh?
As for EEO, I guess you either didn't read or you have chosen to ignore my 2:44 pm post. In the majority of states, it is legal to place an ad for housing, employment, or credit and state that gays need not apply.
As for the rest of your comment, there are over 1,000 Federally granted rights, privileges, and benefits that automatically are granted to a couple when they marry. Those are not granted to same-sex couples who marry in states where it is allowed.
Furthermore, depending upon the state, hundreds more rights, privileges, and benefits accrue to couples by the state when they marry. In MN, that is 515 state-granted rights, privileges, and benefits. (See www.project515.org if you don't believe me.)
This may be off topic; aren't the ones condemning the Mosque and hammering Islam the same ones who are decrying gays because of their religious beliefs?
This is getting confusing. It is also why I don't believe in Religion of any kind.
Everything else goes in Nevada so its very shocking they dont allow gay marriege. Who cares who and what gets married if 2 people are in love let it be. Angle you are in the wrong state for running for senate LMAO. Nevada will never be the holy land that you are trying for.
God have mercy on us! Let marriage STAY DEFINED as that between a man and a woman..
My friend gbigs,
Thank you for your link....you did NOT read the entire law for yourself...it goes on to say:
Some differences between Nevada domestic partnerships and marriage persist. These differences include:
Parties wishing to enter into a domestic partnership must share a common residence, parties wishing to be married need not.[10]
Parties wishing to enter into a domestic partnership must be at least 18 years old.[10] Parties wishing to be married in Nevada can be married at 16 with the consent of at least one parent.[11]
Public agencies and public employers who provide health insurance for married partners of employees need not provide those same benefits to domestic partners.
Still o.k. with you? You're a reasonable person. Does this seem right to you?
...and when the state of Hawaii passed "civil unions", an idea which I could support because it gave ALL the benefits of marriage, while preserving the "word" marriage, the good Governor Lingle vetoed the bill...why? BECAUSE IT RESEMBLED MARRIAGE!
Religious freedom works. It's an American idea. We should be ablt to practice what we preach. Funny how other countries have been able to apply OUR laws to set their standard for equality...Canada, the EU, Japan, Israel (yes, Israel...check it out), and most recently heavily Catholic Argentina & Mexico.
We'll get there. Because we are better then this.
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142
"God have mercy on us! Let marriage STAY DEFINED as that between a man and a woman.."
renan_dc -- 1) your god is irrelevant here, and 2) why should marriage depend on gender?
". . .With morality the individual is led into being a function of the herd and to ascribing value to himself only as a function. . .Morality is the herd instinct in the individual." -- Frederich Nietzsche 1882 "The Gay Science"
My friend KillerB,
Though I had to travel to Canada to marry, I do not dismiss lightly renan_dc's religious beliefs. He is entitled to them as is every American. What we expect is mutual respect for our beliefs. 90% of Americans believe in a higher being. So do I. But renan_dc's beliefs DO NOT trump mine...unless I live in Iraq or Afghanistan. Thank you for your gracious support in your posts here!! The same for murryburns!
Las Vegas, NV 89142
Las Vegas, NV 89142
Dearest friend gbigs,
Thank you for trying to see that Robert and I should be treated equally under the law. That means that we have come a long way to change the hearts and minds of good thinking people like yourself.
I assure you...you can trust me on this...private employers are NOT required to treat Robert and I as equals. I've been to my human rescourses dept...they have NO legal obligation as a private employer. Nothing in the law resticts them from doing so however, but they are certainly NOT mandated like marriage would be. Culinary DOES offer benefits.
I don't know if your still in the work force...ask your employer, see what they say...I know the answer.
Right now there is a case just as important as the Prop 8 case....maybe even more so. This is a case brought in Massachussets by a legally married gay couple. They are testing the constitutionality of the "Defense of Marriae Act" aka DOMA. This act was written be serial marriage abusers like Newt Gingrich (3 times married) and conservative Bob Barr (who has since denounced the act). It will be interesting to see how the courts respond to a legally married couple who can't reap the benefits that the federal government bestows on married couples elsewhere. This is something you might find interesting as it goes to the heart of the matter...federal intervention in a states right to marry who they choose to.
Very interesting, wonky, constitutional stuff!
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142
gbigs,
I double checked the news postings since the ruling and I cannot find that the 9th has rule on the issue of standing that was mentioned in their brief statement accompanying the continuation of the stay. The stay was accompanied with a Dec date for hearing arguments that presumably include standing to file the appeal. I agree they have accepted the appeal, but I cannot find anything that says they have ruled on standing. Do you have a link to support your remark that this has been decided?
I will agree with gbigs to a point.
The whole idea of "marriage" is a religious issue. The government should be concerned only with civil unions.
If people wish to be married then they can find a church or other group that will perform the ceremony. Otherwise a justice of the peace is wholly sufficient.
It simply isn't my concern what consenting adults do. Please note that the operative word is "adults".
That said, there is nothing in the above beliefs that would prohibit polygamy. Unlike gbigs, I could present an argument against trans-species unions. But in reality, it is religious views that are offended by those cases.
Howdydostu: While I think it's awful, as I said before, that this is even an issue in 2010, all in all, Canada's not a bad place to get married. If you ever need a participant in a march or protest on this issue, let me know.
I'm straight, but I and my family have a long association with your community. Hell, your community, imagine even saying that. It's all "our" community. I remember living in New York during the Stonewall riots and my Grandfather, a physician, getting a call from the Manager of the Stonewall, which at the time, ironically, was owned by the Mafia. He walked over as the riots were starting with his medical bag and began treating people in the street.
It was a revolution and a great one, aside from the injuries. It stood for something real and true. And it taught more about the rights of human beings even more than my Civil Rights marches. We are all of the same cloth.
Much later, I ran the Democratic party office in West Hollywood -- I lived around the corner from it and the office always ad good food...and company.
Genesis Chapter 2:18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
Homosexuality is just another form of rebellion against God, homosexuals ask why others care what they do, my answer is because it is breaking down society, it is a contradiction of the word of God, much like abortion.
Please don't say that's what White people through about interracial marriages, that's a bunch of BS, sure you have your racist back in the day, and still have them today, no this is quite different, God never instituted relationships between the same sex, that is a deeply disturbing, and wicked thing. Homosexuality is a Sin, that is what God's word say. I rather believe the word of God
If a couple, of any sexual preference, needs a license to get married, it seems to me that it's more of a legal issue. I don't know the Bible very well, so I'm not sure that it actually mentions the words "marriage" or "divorce."
There are lots of responses to all of this sort of debate, but my question is what harm does same sex marriage do? To say it's "breaking down society," well that may be the opinion of some, but I find patently absurd. I haven't seen society "breaking down," just struggling with the economy.
It's really pointless for me to debate this, as no one really ever changes their mind. I'll leave you with Sal Paradise's quote from Kerouac's "On the Road:" "I want God to come down and show me his face."
"My friend KillerB, Though I had to travel to Canada to marry, I do not dismiss lightly renan_dc's religious beliefs. He is entitled to them as is every American."
howdydostu -- your motivations for posting here are far different from mine. I despise bullies and bigots, no matter how they disguise themselves. Bullies compel and coerce, bigots are actively intolerant of different anything. Even though all are entitled to their opinions, when the herd demands others live according to their standards, morals, opinions, etc. -- see that little bit o' Nietzsche above -- I will not be silent.
"The whole idea of "marriage" is a religious issue. The government should be concerned only with civil unions.....there is nothing in the above beliefs that would prohibit polygamy.....it is religious views that are offended by those cases."
boftx -- yup. Being a descendant of Mormon polygamists -- federal troops were actually sent to Utah to end it -- is another reason this issue is near and dear to me.
"Genesis Chapter 2:18 The LORD God said ... blah-blah .....another form of rebellion against God..... triple-blah ....."
pmontg53 -- although your views are despicable beyond words, thanx for your posts. You proved to those of us who can actually think for ourselves how utterly foolish that bovine biblical dogma really is. I suspect it's one of the reasons Thomas Jefferson's word for the Bible was "dunghill."
"After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands." -- Friedrich Nietzsche 1888 "Ecce Homo - Why I Am a Destiny"
KillerB- Who care about what Thomas Jefferson thought about a religious man? You might consider washing your hands when you shake it with someone who's gay, he might still have dung on it.
KillerB- you might be a real killer packing aids. Good choice on username, in any case most people know that marriage with the same sex is wrong even a dog knows better. Have you ever saw two gay dogs, or two gay cats, this is an absolute perversion. I'm surprised that more people aren't speaking out against this. Las Vegas will not become another San Fransicko, and neither will the state of Nevada.
murrayburns: Romans 1
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
"Has anyone actually read the U.S. Constitution re: federal v. state law?"
Nevada1864 -- although you're correct about the Supremacy Clause, I don't think it's really needed. See my first post above.
pmontg53 -- thanx again for proving my points.
"Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant." -- H L Mencken, 1956 "Minority Report"
KillerB: You take quotes from a lot of different sources, " The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant."-- HL Mencken, 1956 "Minority Report".
Pmontg53: I see that you are deeply opinionated especially about the so-called gay rights issue. I base my beliefs on the word of God, anyone who is in bed with the idea that a man should be married to another man is at best stoned crazy, you can flip up quote after quote, and it will not change the facts, homosexuality is a perversion. Another thing; I do not have to be tolerant to that perversion. I am seeing more people take a stand against this erosion or society. I don't hate the homosexual; I pray that they will escape a life style that will in the end destroy them.
murrayburns: The bible does mention both marriage and divorce", I know that there are churches that embrace a gay life style, churches like that are not followers of Christ, these are false believers, and Christ will tell them in the end that He never knew them. That is if they don't repent, people like the KillerB are people who ask as though they are an authority on issues, and refer to others to compel readers to agree, or at least be tolerant, people who are not sure should educate themselves. I don't expect for anyone just to believe what I say, but if anyone who professes to be a Christian, and someone like Killer is spreading there gay agenda, then Christians are obligated by God to say what they know about the truth.
"KillerB: You take quotes from a lot of different sources"
pmontg53 -- yeah, I've read more than the bible.
You've been proving how utterly irrelevant you and what you worship really are. I'm finished with you here.
"Beware of the fish people, they are the true enemy." -- Frank Zappa, speech to a pro-choice rally in Los Angeles around 1989-90
KillerB: Jesus said " Beware of false teachers who come to you in sheep clothing, but inside they are revenging wolves- Frank Zappa said beware of the fish people, they are the true enemy", at a pro-choice rally,,,people who believe in pro-choice are killers of the innocent, that makes you who agree with it just as guilty before God. is this the insanity that you believe?
http://www.100abortionpictures.com/
as long as you speak out about your perversion, I pray that God will allow me to speak out against it. I pray that God will convict your heart, and help you see the truth, the truth will make you free.
@pmontg53
"Have you ever saw two gay dogs, or two gay cats, this is an absolute perversion."
As a matter of fact I have seen several male dogs trying to do one another in parks. They even formed a doggie train. Happens all the time.
@pmontg53
Are you God as to judge? Because the Bible, the one you keep quoting from also states that God is the judge, not any humans.
Ecclesiastes 3:17
I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.
You my friend have no right to judge anyone, only God. So you yourself are a sinner. Are you going to repent?
@pmontg53
Since you love quoting from the Bible, I gather you should know the answer to this question.
If Jesus knocked on a door of a homosexual couple and they let him in, what do you think he would do? Would he judge them like you are?