Las Vegas Sun

September 19, 2014

Currently: 81° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Effort to repeal Nevada’s gay marriage ban moves forward

Measure might not have Sandoval’s support, who has reiterated his conservative position

Click to enlarge photo

Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval speaks to the Las Vegas Sun editorial board Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2012.

Click to enlarge photo

Tick Segerblom

Despite Gov. Brian Sandoval's belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, the Senate Judiciary Committee is poised Thursday to approve a constitutional amendment on gay marriage.

Committee Chairman Sen. Tick Segerblom, D-Las Vegas, says there are enough votes for Senate Joint Resolution 13 to clear both the committee and the full Senate. Some Republicans are supporting the measure, he said.

The governor, in a posted interview with a Spanish-language reporter, said he backed Nevada’s domestic partner law but opposes gay marriage. The interview was outlined on the website of political journalist Jon Ralston.

Segerblom said he was “surprised” at the statement of the governor and added, “I feel he will change his opinion sometime in the next year or two.”

He noted this proposed constitutional amendment does not have to be approved by the governor.

Nevada’s Constitution now bars marriage between same-sex couples.

The resolution being considered would repeal that ban. It would have to be approved by this Legislature and again in 2015 and then be put on the 2016 ballot.

Supporters told the Judiciary Committee that public sentiment has changed since the voters approved the prohibition in 2000 and 2002. The vote in 2002 was 337,197 to 164,573 to ban gay marriages.

The Legislature permitted same-sex couples to register as domestic partners with the secretary of state but they were not given the full benefits of marriage. As of April 1, there were 4,154 domestic couples, but a spokeswoman for the Secretary of State’s Office said some of them were man and woman couples.

There was no estimate how many were man-woman relationships.

The resolution has the support also of the wedding chapel industry who argued it would draw gay couples to Nevada from other states to get married.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 6 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.

  1. Change the State Constitution. Get your petitions, do your work and see if you win at the ballot box.

    Don't wimp out by crying to a judge hoping you find somebody without a backbone.

    Once you change the definition of marriage, can you tell me where it stops? No, you cannot. The goal here is to destroy marriage as an institution, and you leftists probably will.

  2. Nevada needs to do this. Not only because it is the right thing to do, but it would do wonders for our tourism.

  3. By extending same sex couples the right to marry doesn't threaten the religious institutions. Opposite sex couples of faith still have the choice of a religious ritual of marriage.

    Besides, I believe their are faith based churches that are open to serving those wanting a same sex marriage, and that is their business, not the general public. Separation of church and state protects religious institutions who object to performing same sex marriages.

    The voters simply need to express their agreement with the US Constitution, including consensual same sex marriage as a right in NV as a way of allowing a large segment of our society to enjoy equally life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Tourism may be helped, but if the tourists reside in a State that doesn't recognize same sex marriage it is not an advantage to marry in NV and return home and not have the marriage recognized.

    Procreation is not really an issue since there are ways for same sex couples to produce offspring. Plus, we do not require production of offspring as a requirement for a legal marriage. If we did, there would be alot more mandatory annulments.

  4. "Despite Gov. Brian Sandoval's belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, the Senate Judiciary Committee is poised Thursday to approve a constitutional amendment on gay marriage. . . . .Nevada's Constitution now bars marriage between same-sex couples."

    Ryan -- you should have mentioned how that Constitutional ban was a recent change. You can check that out @ http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst...

    Sandoval's opinion is irrelevant if he's going to stay true to his oath to support, protect and defend the Constitutions. So long as any law favors heterosexual marriages over others, it's unConstitutionl and therefore void.

    "Change the State Constitution. Get your petitions, do your work and see if you win at the ballot box. . .Once you change the definition of marriage, can you tell me where it stops? . . .The goal here is to destroy marriage as an institution, and you leftists probably will."

    lovinglife -- the current ban in Nevada's Constitution was an incredibly stupid, blatantly unConstitutional amendment. People like you miss the point entirely -- it's about inequality, not opinions, not consensus, not morals. Non-traditional couples who wish to marry don't need anybody's permission to do so. They are perfectly entitled to enjoy the same benefits all traditionally-married couples do under the Constitutional guarantees of equality, pursuing happiness, etc. The only barriers are those created by the ignorant and disapproving herd. I suggest you read the guarantees @ http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst... and http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst... Section 5.

    "By extending same sex couples the right to marry doesn't threaten the religious institutions."

    peacelily -- you almost got it right. As you can see above, they are already at liberty to marry and enjoy the same rights. It's all in the Constitutions. All that needs to happen is government get out of the marriage business and repeal all laws not treating marriages -- no matter what the form -- equally.

    "[Our] principles [are] founded on the immovable basis of equal right and reason." -- Thomas Jefferson, to James Sullivan, 1797

  5. There is the usual comment by someone about how gays marrying will destroy the institution of marriage

    Its too bad that people take religious material at face value. its faith - unprovable, stories from 2000 years ago

    There are several conservative reasons for supporting gays marrying

    one is to embarrass the str8s who are divorcing left and right and destroying the institution. GAys want to support the4 institution of marriage

    second we want everyone to have a stable relationship so the state doesnt have to step in and help if eg they become disabled.

    Third why doesnt that commentator save his Ire for all the kids growing up in single parent families. We have 3 now grown kids and it sure wasnt easy,
    4ths its tin the constituion - equal rights for all.

    As for whats happened in MA which has had gays marrying for now 9 years

    1> It has the lowest divorce rate in the country
    2. it has the lowest unemployment rate in the country - 3.9%

    it all com es from a well educated secular populace eg Harvard, MIT, Northeastern, BU, BC, Leslie U, Radcliff, tufts Univ, UMa etc - just in the Boston area

    Meanwhile if you check the web, you'll find that the bible belt right wing south has some of the worst divorce rates and poverty rates in the country.

  6. chuck333,

    I would say use every positive argument there is to reach our legislators. Some respond to reason and morals, others respond to money. This is a win-win no matter how you look at it.

    Besides, this is Vegas, baby!