Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon

sponsored by
News


STATE ASSEMBLY: Domestic partner bill advances

26-14 vote is two short for veto override

CARSON CITY -- Same- and opposite-sex couples could secure domestic partnership contracts giving them the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual married couples under a bill that received overwhelming support Friday in the Assembly.

But the 26-14 vote for Senate Bill 283 fell two short of the 28 that will be needed in the coming weeks to override a promised veto from Gov. Jim Gibbons.


Most Popular Stories
  • Traffic accident claims life of longtime, successful lawyer
  • TRAFFIC STOP: Shooting accounts conflict
  • One motorcyclist killed, another critically injured in accident
  • THE FACES OF JOBLESSNESS: Family had to get help for first time
  • Nurseries fence out day laborers
  • NORM: Marie Osmond, manager battling
  • NORM: Buchanan called 'larger than life'
  • Second person dies after being restrained by police
  • REFUSING THEIR OWN MEDICINE: Vaccination policy spurs legal action
  • NORM: Agassi reveals bad vibes with Shields




  • Earlier Friday, the bill's primary sponsor, Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas, said he believes he now has the two votes he needs in the Senate to override Gibbons' veto. The bill passed the Senate on a 12-9 vote last month.

    Based on the Assembly vote, Parks -- the only admitted homosexual member of the Legislature -- also needs a couple of more votes in the Assembly.

    In a related issue Friday, the Assembly also voted 37-3 for Senate Bill 207 that would outlaw discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. The bill previously was approved 19-2 in the Senate.

    Lodging, restaurant and gaming lobbyists testified for the bill during hearings.

    Gibbons reiterated Friday that he will veto the domestic partnership bill once it reaches his desk.

    That won't come before sometime in the next two weeks after the Senate is expected to approve Assembly-passed amendments that Parks added in an attempt to win more support.

    One of those amendments specifies that companies are not required, but can voluntarily choose, to offer health care benefits to the domestic partners of their workers.

    The domestic partnership bill won Assembly approval after emotional speeches by members Ellen Spiegel, D-Henderson, and Sheila Leslie, D-Reno.

    Spiegel said the bill isn't just for gay couples. It also would allow heterosexual couples to become domestic partners.

    She mentioned she secured a domestic partnership when she lived in Santa Monica, Calif., so she could move into an apartment with her boyfriend rather than pay inflated rent in the apartment where she was living. A few months later, they married.

    Earlier in her life, Spiegel said she lived with a man who suddenly died at age 40. Since the home was in his name, police told her she had to leave quickly after he died. She had no legal right to anything.

    In her "gayborhood," Leslie said there are many nice, committed gay couples, including one that includes the father of her child. They should have the same right as married couples, she said.

    Leslie said she sees the bill "in the great tradition of Nevada libertarianism. I think our state motto should be 'Live and Let Live.' In Nevada, government should not intrude in our lives."

    But Assemblyman Ty Cobb, R-Reno, said gay couples can secure inheritance, hospital visitation, end-of-life decision and other rights through private contracts.

    He said he opposes the bill because it goes against the intentions of Nevada voters who passed the Protection of Marriage constitutional amendment in 2002. That amendment specifies a marriage can be only between a man and a woman.

    Cobb said SB283 supporters received an opinion from legislative lawyers that a domestic partnership is not the same as a marriage as defined by the constitutional amendment.

    But he still said he believe the bill is in "direct conflict" with that amendment.

    Although speaking out against domestic partnerships, Cobb strongly voiced support for the bill forbidding discrimination against gays and other people in public accommodations.

    Nevada is a state that prides itself on "personal freedom," said Cobb of SB207, and the bill will become the law that allows everyone "to enjoy the personal freedom Nevada has to offer."

    In an interview, American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada Director Gary Peck praised the substantial vote for the domestic partnership bill, but said his organization is disappointed it is short of the number needed to override a veto.

    "I hope everyone has considered the possible consequences of this bill ending up in a trash bin at the end of the session," he said.

    "What people do in their bedrooms is their business."

    Peck said the ACLU worked three sessions on outlawing discrimination in public accommodations and could not be more thrilled by the vote for SB207 in both houses.

    Under SB283, a gay or heterosexual couple would pay a fee to the secretary of state and receive a one-page domestic partnership contract.

    They would not have to solemnize their partnership with any ceremony, although the bill does not forbid them from taking that step voluntarily.

    Four states now allow same-sex marriage. Nine states and numerous municipalities permit domestic partnerships.

    Parks drew up his bill based on the agreements in California and Colorado.

    Every Democrat except Mo Denis of Las Vegas and Marilyn Kirkpatrick of North Las Vegas voted for the bill.

    Of the 14 Republicans, only Ed Goedhart of Amargosa Valley voted for it.

    Assembly members Jerry Claborn, D-Las Vegas, and John Carpenter, R-Elko, were absent.

    Contact reporter Ed Vogel at evogel@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3901.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 16 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Report abuse

    tom wrote on May 28, 2009 10:25 PM: Well if this is the case and we cannot have the same rights as a married couple and now we can have domestic partnership to protect ourselves maybe it is time to stop paying our property taxes that goes for schools and public welfare and other government programs that assists the so called married families we are all americans and all americans should be treated equal.LETS SEE THE GOVERNOR CAN HAVE AN AFFAIR BUT HE WANTS TO PROTECT THE SANCTANY OF MARRIAGE WHAT THE HELL, DID HE TELL HIS TRICK THAT. And then you have the morman church that wants to protect the word marriage is only between a man and a women amazing when there church was based on one husband and who knows how many wifes,what spaceship did they come out of,as well as how much money the morman church spent to make sure that this was passed in Neveda and in California, what ever happen to separation of church and state were these funds they spent to defeat these billscome from there tax free statis for if it was they should be required to pay tax on all of those funds. Domestic Partnership gives us the rights to be there for there life partner and be able to take care of things that are needed incase of illness and or death, we are people we have feelings as well AND ALL YOU HOLY ROLLERS NEED TO REMEMBER THAT EVERYONE WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD AND IM SURE GOD CANNOT HAVE MADE SO MANY MISTAKES FOR AS MANY GAY PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE WORLD. WAKE UP AND GIVE US THE RESPECT WE GIVE YOU IS IT TIME FOR A NEW REVOLUTION


    Report abuse

    Gibbons the Dictator wrote on May 17, 2009 02:52 PM: SO lets see...we have a Gov who decides what bills to keep or veto based on his OWN PERSONAL BELIEFS

    When did he forget this is a representative government, not a dictatorship?

    Oh wait, maybe his mistress forgot to tell him.


    Report abuse

    Unbeleiveable wrote on May 17, 2009 02:48 PM: Hey Gods Law ~ You best start stoning people and doing many other things of the old testament or otherwise you are just cherry picking the bible.


    So here we are as a state which has legalized prostitution, gambling, billboards of t*ts and a**es, of naked women and strip club advertisements.

    But god forbid a domestic couple should be given the rights necessary for medical, etc without having to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars and having to carry around a 5 inch pack of paperwork in their car 100% of the year


    Report abuse

    Gibbons a hypocrite wrote on May 17, 2009 02:44 PM: "A statement from the governor's office read "Gibbons has said many times, the government has no business in your medicine cabinet or in your bedroom."

    _______________________________

    Well then the State better stop issuing all marriage licenses since that apparently is the same thing........What an absolute hypocrite.


    Report abuse

    Yuck wrote on May 16, 2009 06:31 PM: Smells like poo poo...


    Report abuse

    Too_many_laws wrote on May 16, 2009 02:04 PM: Repeal the 14th Amendment. It's an artifact of the War Between the States. Before 14, there was really no such thing as a citizen of the USA. You were a citizen of Nevada, California, etc. Rights were protected by your respective state's constitution. The federal government pushed through 14 to annihilate the idea of State Sovereignty; to turn itself into a "national" government. Sorry, but under our system the federal government was meant to be SUBORDINATE to the states (in all but ~18 delegated powers).

    The idea of equal protection sounds nice, but it's really just a huge federal power grab. For purposes of this discussion, if Massachusettes citizens want to recognize gay marriage, that is their business. But gays who marry there should not expect Nevadan law to recognize it. Just like we wouldn't expect religious Xtians to recognize it, either. It's not for the federal government to decide which state's constitution becomes law of the land.


    Report abuse

    Free Nevada">
    Free Nevada wrote on May 16, 2009 01:39 PM: @Too_many_laws, we're just covering our butts (no pun intended) to make sure the 14th Amendment is being upheld (everyone is entitled to same government protection under the Law, even if we refer to those rights as being called "marriage" in one context and "domestic partnership contracts" in another).

    If we were California, this would be good law. But, we're a tiny state with less than 1.9 million people payin' for all our stuff with the proceeds of tourism, so we financially need to be respecting all official marriages from other states, no matter what they are like, and we need to allow those folks who come here from those places to get married however they want and go back home; otherwise, we'll lose the revenue to Caribbean, Mexico or even Hawaii. Feels a bit like we're all trapped in a 50s sci-fi flick here sometimes, doesn't it?


    Report abuse

    Colin wrote on May 16, 2009 12:11 PM: I don't really want to take a side here, but I am remimded of Richard Belzer's old joke (he started as a comic). Commenting on the outbreak of aids in the country, he opined, "Who would have thought that getting it up the a** from thousands of perfect strangers could possible be harmful". Hey, if we are going to let the gays get married, then the same should go polygamists, and adult incest practitioners. Go Rosie...a thing of beauty.


    Report abuse

    Mark V wrote on May 16, 2009 11:48 AM: Using Leviticus as my guide I "may have male and female slaves, but buy them from the nations around you" Which country shall we buy from? Seriouly people if you choose to insist the Bible is your guide you better follow all the rules.


    Report abuse

    ron wrote on May 16, 2009 11:22 AM: The reason this has to be done at the legislative level is because people like John and 'god' law' think it's okay to impose a personal opinion on others. Same people who probably wouldn't have voted to let women vote or interracial couples marry. If people would worry about themselves and their own mortal soul and stop trying to "save" everyone else, the world would be a better place.


    Read All Comments