Cannon asserts "10 years ago the best gay rights proponents could hope for was somewhere domestic partnerships would be allowed."

Uh, no. The case challenging Hawaii's laws forbidding same-sex marriage started in 1993, sixteen years ago; this was considered so strong a legal challenge that it scared the anti-marriage forces into passing DOMA in 1996, thirteen years ago. In short, it's well documented that same-sex marriage has been a realistic goal in the US since at least the early nineties, and many of us have been working towards that goal for longer than that.

Meanwhile, in all that time I'm unaware of ANY significant effort to force churches to perform marriages of same-sex couples. It's been over 40 years since Loving v. Virginia, and there are still churches that won't perform interracial marriages. Have you heard of any of them being successfully sued for this? I haven't.

So Todd, is there actually a court order to comply, or is this nonbinding? Searching the web, I can find the initial NERC ruling in August, and news stories about the public hearing on Friday, but I don't see anything about a court order.

This is an important distinction because of the confusion over whether the "against public policy" phrasing in NRS 233 means illegal. Businesses are currently happy to trot out NRS 651 and claim gender discrimination is perfectly legal in Nevada, and I'm curious whether that has been definitively shot down yet or not.

What on earth was the point of this? 80 places to buy alcohol in the neighborhood, and an 81st is going to make a difference for drunk driving rates?

The only likely change is that people shopping for both alcohol and other things will have to make multiple stops, driving further, which is bad for both safety and the environment. Especially if they're drunk.

I mean, I'm all in favor of sticking it to The Man, but please, pick a battle that actually matters!