Nevada leadership mum on proposed ban on same-sex marriages

CARSON CITY - Nevada seems like a "live and let live" state, with wide-open gambling and legal brothels. So it was no shock when top elected officials united in 1994 to help defeat an antigay ballot measure.

Fast-forward to 2000: the governor and lieutenant governor, whose predecessors led the fight in 1994, aren't taking a stand on a new ballot proposal to bar same-sex marriages.

The Coalition for the Protection of Marriage is currently collecting signatures to get the plan on the November ballot. The proposal would bolster an existing state law against same-sex unions by adding one sentence to the Nevada Constitution: "Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state."

It's similar to changes in recent years in at least 30 other states, and to a California plan on that state's March ballot.

So what's up in Nevada, a state where lawmakers repealed a sodomy law in 1993, lengthened prison terms for hate crimes in 1995, and provided workplace protections for gays and lesbians in 1999?

Eric Herzik, a University of Nevada, Reno political science professor, says one factor is the new proposal's narrow scope.

The 1994 plan sought more than a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. It also would have barred any minority status based on sexual preference under civil rights law, or public spending that might promote homosexuality.

"The 1994 plan was more antigay, homophobic, and it was fairly easy to take a stand against it," says Herzik. "But the latest one is far more focused on one issue, gay marriage. That makes it a little harder for politicians."

The organized fight against the new plan is being mounted mainly by citizen advocacy groups such as the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, which takes on a wide range of causes.

Other critics include Nevada members of Log Cabin, a national Republican group for gays and lesbians; the Las Vegas Bugle, a gay publication; and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The critics point out that state law already defines marriage as a male-female union, and maintain there's no need to revise the Nevada Constitution.

"It's totally unnecessary," says Dan Burdish, a gay political activist in Las Vegas. "There's no possibility that our Legislature is going to make same-sex marriages legal in the foreseeable future."

Burdish, former executive director of the state Republican Party, is sending out e-mails to various officials, urging them to oppose the plan.

Those on his e-mail list include GOP Gov. Kenny Guinn, whose response so far has been, "I can't get involved in every issue that comes up."

Guinn, a moderate Republican, opposes government by petition. But he says that means proposals to alter Nevada's tax or government structure.

Guinn also said gay couples can do what they want in private, but he believes in traditional marriages.

Contrast that with former Democratic Gov. Bob Miller, a conservative on issues such as abortion, who said the 1994 plan was based on "intolerance and discrimination."

Miller was backed by then-Lt. Gov. Sue Wagner, a Republican who oversaw state efforts to expand tourism. Wagner said the plan would hurt tourism and run counter to Nevada's long history of tolerance.

This year, Republican Lt. Gov. Lorraine Hunt says, "The right to petition is part of our American heritage."

But Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman is concerned - just as his predecessor, Jan Laverty Jones, was in 1994.

"We already have a statute on the books," Goodman says. "To me, to make it a constitutional issue has to be driven by some kind of wrongful motivation. Somebody is trying to brew up a pot of bad news."

Legislative leaders also question the need for the proposal, although many other lawmakers are divided, mainly along liberal-conservative lines.

"I don't see a problem in Nevada now," says Assembly Speaker Joe Dini, D-Yerington. "Why all this uproar? This is being pushed by a zealous group that wants to be a step ahead of everything - but they're not being rational."

"I'm not sure the petition is the best way to address this," says Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, adding that there's little chance lawmakers would erase the state law against same-sex marriages.

But coalition spokesman Richard Ziser says courts in other states may allow same-sex marriages and, under the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Nevada would have to recognize such marriages.

Raggio isn't sure about that interpretation, and wants the lawmakers' legal counsel to research the issue.

UNR's Herzik says Ziser's "full faith and credit" argument raises another concern that shifts the plan "from being seen as antigay to more of a states' rights issue."

Hawaii almost legalized gay marriages and Vermont might, he says, adding, "States are saying, 'Wait a minute. Some other state is going to make a decision for us?' The venue has shifted."

Fiscal conservatives also may fret about possible state costs, such as health benefits to the partner of a gay state employee.

"Nevada is very individualistic and libertarian," says Herzik. "Gambling and prostitution and I'd even say gay lifestyles aren't going to be shut down," he says. "But it's also a cheap state."

Ziser's group needs 44,009 signatures of registered voters by June 20 to get on the November ballot. If passed, the plan would be on the ballot again in 2002.

archive