Las Vegas Sun

December 28, 2014

Currently: 38° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Same-sex marriage: Where Nevada politicians stand

Image

ASSOCIATED PRESS

This artist rendering shows attorney Charles J. Cooper, right, addressing the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, March 26, 2013, as the court heard arguments on California’s ban on same-sex marriage. Justices, from left are, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan.

Sun coverage

The U.S. Supreme Court is tackling two major cases this week that, depending on the outcome, may set the course for marriage equality laws across the country.

On Tuesday, the court heard arguments about the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California ballot measure banning gay marriage that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unconstitutional about a year ago. On Wednesday, they’re tackling the constitutionality of the federal law that defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman and absolves states of responsibility to recognize the validity of gay marriages performed in other states.

The cases won’t finally settle the question of whether gays should be allowed to marry in all 50 states. But the Supreme Court’s decisions — due before late June — will set a standard for where the country stands on the underlying issue of homosexual marriages that could easily inspire a shake-up in laws nationwide.

In a way, that trend has started. In the past week, several heretofore silent lawmakers from across the political spectrum have declared support for gay marriage as well as a new distaste for the Defense of Marriage Act that established the heterosexual-only definition in 1996.

In Nevada, such a trend could have a palpable effect, as the state Legislature is considering a change to the Silver State’s definition of marriage that would allow gay couples to marry. Senate Joint Resolution 13 would repeal Nevada’s heterosexual-only definition of marriage. If the Legislature passes it this year and in 2015, it will go to voters in 2016.

But despite the confluence of potentially precedent-setting moments in Nevada, just a few of the state’s top elected officials have noticeably changed their position on gay marriage in the past several months.

    • Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat

      Last year, Reid had one of the most public evolutions on gay marriage in the Democratic Party, overshadowed only by President Barack Obama’s public declaration that homosexual couples should be afforded the same marriage rights as their heterosexual counterparts.

      “My personal belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Reid said at the time. “But in a civil society, I believe that people should be able to marry whomever they want, and it’s no business of mine if two men or two women want to get married.”

      Before last spring, Reid would publicly defer to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ position opposing gay marriage when asked about his stance on the legality of such unions (the Mormon church was one of the largest financial backers of the Proposition 8 ballot question in California).

      This year, however, Reid went so far as to sign a friend-of-the-court brief expressing his belief that the Defense of Marriage Act’s definition of marriage should be ruled unconstitutional.

      “When Congress enacted DOMA, gay and lesbian couples could not marry anywhere in the world. ... In short, it was a different world for gay men and lesbians,” the brief Reid signed read. “DOMA must be struck down.”

      Reid indicated last year that the Senate could vote on whether to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, but that was before the Supreme Court announced it would weigh the constitutionality of the 1996 decision in Windsor v. United States.

    • Sen. Dean Heller, Republican

      Heller has made a move toward the center on many social issues dominating the political discussion. But on gay marriage, he remains quietly, but firmly, of the opinion that marriage is a heterosexual-only institution.

      “Sen. Heller supports traditional marriage and believes this is an issue that should be decided on a state level,” Heller’s spokeswoman, Chandler Smith, said this week.

      Heller’s voting record on various gay rights issues reflects that stance. He voted against the repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in 2010, a vote for which many Republicans — including then-Nevada Sen. John Ensign — crossed party lines to vote to end the policy that kept gay servicemen and women from being open about their sexual orientation. Like many in his party, Heller cast earlier votes against hate crime and employee nondiscrimination protections for homosexuals.

      Still, it is worth noting that recently, Heller has not indicated any interest in going to the mat over issues pertaining to gay marriage. He recently described a push to extend immigration benefits to same-sex couples “interesting” — which is not exactly a ringing endorsement but is neither an outright condemnation. Heller has not publicly expressed an opinion on SJR13.

    • Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, Republican

      As Nevada’s top Republican, the head of a state often split on social issues and the named target of a previous lawsuit challenging Nevada’s current civil unions-only law, Sandoval occupies a uniquely central position in the gay marriage debate.

      For now, he is balancing that position by toeing the party line but refusing to tip the scales of public opinion further by advocating for one outcome or another in either Supreme Court case or the eventual result of a Nevada referendum.

      “My personal belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Sandoval said in a statement supplied to the Sun on Tuesday. “But as governor, I believe the people of Nevada should have the freedom to decide should this issue come before them for a vote.”

    • Nevada Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick, Democrat

      The Legislature’s top elected Democrat will bear the primary responsibility for carrying the pending Senate resolution through the Assembly, should it continue to gain traction as the debate over gay marriage continues at the state and federal levels.

      Kirkpatrick said public opinion has affirmed the legitimacy of gay marriage is waiting for legislatures and other institutions to catch up.

      “Public opinion has shifted in the last 10 years on this issue,” she told the Sun in a statement this week. “It’s not the role of the government to potentially stand in the way of the will of the people.”

      Kirkpatrick also said she thinks Nevadans should get the chance to vote on the question of extending marriage rights to homosexual couples.

    • Nevada Assembly Minority Leader Pat Hickey, Republican

      Although some Republicans have supported the idea of a state referendum on gay marriage, others think the matter has been settled in the court of public opinion — on the side of restricting marriage as a heterosexual-only institution.

      “Nevadans have already spoken clearly on the side of preserving the traditional institution of marriage between a man and a woman,” Hickey said in an email.

      In 2002, by a two-thirds majority, Nevada approved a ballot question banning gay marriage. Seven years later, the Nevada Legislature approved civil unions, though not marriages, for homosexual couples.

      Still, Hickey considers the matter settled and rejects the idea that it is time to reopen an issue he says was publicly adjudicated.

      “Liberals love diversity,” Hickey said. “Let there then be a diversity of opinions in the states. History has shown two-parent marriages are society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.”

    • Nevada Senate Majority Leader Mo Denis, Democrat

      Reid isn’t the only leading Mormon Democrat who has personally wrestled with the gay marriage issue as his party coalesces around a fully supportive stance. In the Nevada Senate, Denis has also been weighing the teachings of his church with the position of his party.

      Though Denis has not gone quite as far as Reid, he has made an effort to remove his own personal opinions from the equation.

      “Sen. Denis’ stance on marriage equality is that ultimately it is up to the voters of Nevada,” said Denis’ spokesman, Mike Luce, noting that Denis has supported the effort to give voters a say on removing the heterosexual-only definition from the state constitution by public referendum. “He will stand behind whatever choice the voters of Nevada make.”

    • Nevada Sen. Michael Roberson, R-Henderson, speaks out against a Democratic redistricting plan during debate on the Senate floor Tuesday, May 10, 2011, at the Legislature in Carson City, Nev. The Senate passed the plan on a strict party-line vote. Sen. Shirley Breeden, D-Henderson, is at left.

      Nevada Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson, Republican

      Democrats aren’t the only ones publicly threading the needle between their personal opinions and their official votes on gay marriage.

      Case in point: Roberson, who maintains that marriage is a heterosexual-only institution, said this week he would support a measure to remove that definition from the state constitution and efforts to do the same at other levels of government.

      “I have always believed that marriage is a religious union between a man and a woman, and I have never understood why government has a role in this relationship,” Roberson said. “However, given the fact that the government does license and sanction marriage in Nevada, it is difficult for me to justify differential treatment based upon sexual orientation.”

      “I cannot support treating one group of individuals differently under the law than another. As such, I support giving the voters the option of repealing this provision of our state constitution.”

    • 1st Congressional District Rep. Dina Titus, Democrat

      When Titus was serving in the Nevada Senate, she openly challenged efforts to promote a definition of marriage that excluded same-sex couples.

      As a U.S. congresswoman, she supports gay marriage and all efforts to overturn the federal laws that have kept homosexual couples from being able to marry and have those marriages recognized in all corners of the U.S.

      “We must fight against discrimination and unequal treatment under the law at all levels of government and extend same-sex couples the legal protections and rights that federal law provides to all other married couples,” she said in a statement, reiterating her readiness to vote to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act if presented with the opportunity in Congress.

    • 4th Congressional District Rep. Steven Horsford, Democrat

      As state Senate majority leader, Horsford was a vocal supporter of gay marriage who also recognized the challenges of fully revamping marriage laws in Nevada.

      Though he personally would have gone further, Horsford championed and congratulated lawmakers for their “courage” in 2009 when state lawmakers voted to legalize civil unions, though they stopped short of affording gay couples full marriage rights.

      In Congress, however, Horsford thinks it is past time for such compromises. He has fashioned himself as a vocal advocate for equal marriage rights and supports the extensive federal changes necessary to give gay couples access to marriage that is on equal legal footing with homosexual couples.

      “I am a strong supporter for LGBT rights and the freedom to marry,” Horsford said in a statement. “Discrimination of any kind of wrong and should be fought at every turn. ... It is time to stop denying federal benefits to those in committed relationships and end discrimination based on who you love.”

    • 3rd Congressional District Rep. Joe Heck, Republican

      As the gay marriage debate picks up speed, many lawmakers have felt the need to clarify their personal views.

      Other lawmakers, such as Heck, think it is safest to express no personal position.

      “Congressman Heck believes that the definition of marriage should be determined by the states,” Heck’s spokesman, Greg Lemon, said this week.

      Heck enjoys the unique position of a having a voting record that is sparser than most when it comes to gay rights. He had left the state Senate when civil unions were approved in 2009 and wasn’t yet in Congress when it voted to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in 2010.

      Heck hasn’t reacted particularly warmly to lawmakers’ expressions of personal evolutions on gay marriage either. Last year, he called Obama’s announcement of support for gay marriage a distraction from the real issues, according to several reports.

    • Republican Mark Amodei speaks at a victory party in Reno on Tuesday after defeating Democrat Kate Marshall in a special election for Nevada's 2nd Congressional District. Amodei's daughters Erin, left, and Ryanne were among the supporters on hand.

      2nd Congressional District Rep. Mark Amodei, Republican

      Heck isn’t the only Nevada congressman who has tried to stay relatively mum on gay marriage: For the past few years, Amodei hasn’t volunteered much public comment on the subject.

      Unlike Heck, however, Amodei has a recent voting record on the subject: In 2009, he voted against the bill that made civil unions legal in Nevada. Amodei has not made a concerted public effort to change the record about his stance.

      A spokesman for Amodei did not respond to inquiries about Amodei’s stance on gay marriage, and the issue did not emerge as a point of contention in either his 2011 bid to Congress or his 2012 re-election race.

    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: 10 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. @truthserum...

      So you make a conscious choice to be heterosexual?

      Do you really not understand the distinction between gay marriage and bestiality?

    2. "In Nevada, such a trend could have a palpable effect, as the state Legislature is considering a change to the Silver State's definition of marriage that would allow gay couples to marry. . ."

      Its seems nobody gets it. Gays, et al., already have the right to marry based on the fundamental principles underpinning our Constitutions. It's called equality. The civil rights body of law proves that abundantly. Nobody needs anybody's permission to marry anybody else, in whatever numbers. The big problem now has its roots when the state authorities long ago required licenses. Get government out of the marriage business and most of this problem goes away.

      "Should we really care what our alleged representatives feel or should we start electing individuals who represent "The People"?"

      BobR -- only to the extent how they "feel" is in harmony with their oaths to support, protect and defend the Constitutions. Particularly the parts about equality and inalienable rights. Have a look @ http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst...

      "homosexual marriage is a travesty and should be illegal - the same as if you wanted to marry your dog."

      truthserum -- your reasoning is so flawed it's utterly despicable.

      "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)

    3. "marriage is between a MALE and a FEMALE"

      truths -- why? Other than that, you continue to prove how profoundly ignorant you are of what it means to be a citizen in this republic.

      "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." -- George Orwell's "Animal Farm" (1945)

    4. Why not compromise. Let those who wish to have the religious benefits of living together in a family, get married within the religion of their choice. The religion is free to discriminate however its principals dictate: One man, one woman? OK. Only members of our religion? OK. Only right-handed people? OK.

      Let those who wish to have the civil benefits of living together in a family, go to the local courthouse and create a civil union within the civil rules/laws of the entity granting the benefits. The civil authority must treat all people the same.

      Let those who want the benefits of BOTH, take both actions.

      Of course dissolution of a marriage/union - and disposition of property, establishment of parental rights, etc. - will be allowed ONLY under the direct supervision of whatever entity created it in the first place.

    5. The courts will "have to" approve of GLBT marriages as long as there are inequities for married couples over other couples, singles.... The tax code pays people to marry. Inheritance law ditto. And the media has told us that many pursue marriage to obtain employer-provided spousal benefits. If the laws provided comparable "benefits" and "rights" to those in civil unions....the issue would be moot. Remember the constitution provides for EQUAL PROTECTION and since we provide financial perks for "married" couples.....then others are also entitled to be "married" unless you provide all those perks to everyone else.

    6. " Remember the constitution provides for EQUAL PROTECTION and since we provide financial perks for "married" couples.....then others are also entitled to be "married" unless you provide all those perks to everyone else."

      Roslenda -- you nailed it.

      "I heartily accept the motto, 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically." -- Henry David Thoreau 1849 "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience"

    7. @Mitzy17: Your attempts to muddy the water are both disingenuous and ridiculous. Exaggerating ad nauseum is not an argumentative technique that anyone that can defend their opinion any other way would engage in. If you want to argue about polyamourous relationships, wait until that comes up. It's irrelevant here, and you know it. In the end, you're side only has two arguments: My religion has to apply to everyone, or same sex marriages are icky. For the first, hello, welcome to America, where we have freedom of religion, and you don't get to impose yours on everyone. For the second, get over it. I'm sure that they find your sex life just as icky. I'm sure that I do.

    8. "It has nothing to do with equality or rights. The current charge is about redefining the definition of what marriage is."

      mitzy17 -- you're wrong. Exactly what part of equality and "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" being inalienable rights don't you understand? On the basis of those fundamental principles, government's has little if any legitimacy in defining personal relationships. For the rest caisuluplus said it best.

      "In the end, you're side only has two arguments: My religion has to apply to everyone, or same sex marriages are icky. For the first, hello, welcome to America, where we have freedom of religion, and you don't get to impose yours on everyone."

      caisuluplus -- although to be fair to mitzy, his/her/its post wasn't religious, I concur with your premise. As the last Republican presidential campaign proved, religious types are absolutely dedicated to making the rest of us live by their dictates. One Arkansas Republican seriously proposed the death penalty for disobedient children! He said it was what his constituents wanted according to "God's plan"!!

      "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"

    9. Equal protection under the law, ultimately protected by the United States Constitution, the definitive law of our land, is my personal take, regardless of my personal preferences on the subject controversy.

      So is this a state's rights versus federal, United States Constitutional authority's question?

      We are talking about discrimination towards a select population of people, which is inherently wrong.

      Commenter Roberta Anderson really rocked in the comments with, "The courts will "have to" approve of GLBT marriages as long as there are inequities for married couples over other couples, singles.... The tax code pays people to marry. Inheritance law ditto. And the media has told us that many pursue marriage to obtain employer-provided spousal benefits. If the laws provided comparable "benefits" and "rights" to those in civil unions....the issue would be moot. Remember the constitution provides for EQUAL PROTECTION and since we provide financial perks for "married" couples.....then others are also entitled to be "married" unless you provide all those perks to everyone else."

      Commenter KillerB expressed, "The big problem now has its roots when the state authorities long ago required licenses. Get government out of the marriage business and most of this problem goes away."

      One of the unfortunate outcomes of property ownership, is the disposition of that property, or ownership rights. In our society, well pretty much every society in the world, record keeping of births, deaths, marriages, and divorces have traditionally protected property rights. Hence, one great big important reason government(s) are involved, however flawed a government is. This helps establish property ownership rights and settle disputes.

      No bigger battles in this life will you see, than when property has to be divided and rights established. Divorce and probate attorneys will testify to that fact. This is also true in the business world.

      The only real choice is to provide equal protection
      of an individual's rights thanks to our country's US Constitution.

      Blessings and Peace,
      Star

    10. "No bigger battles in this life will you see, than when property has to be divided and rights established. Divorce and probate attorneys will testify to that fact."

      star -- excellent reasoning! One original purpose of government was to protect property rights, history telling us without government there are no such rights. This is one of the primary purposes for the judicial branch to exist. The attorneys you mentioned not only profit handsomely from these types of cases, but often stir the pot and have set themselves up as the gatekeepers for the justice claimants seek regarding those rights.

      All of which tells us these are essentially civil cases between adversarial parties disputing ownership and other rights. Which begs the question why does government get involved as a party with its thumb on the scales of justice? As in licensing marriage and other strictly private relationships?

      "The legal system has also been wounded by lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law ..... When lawyers cannot be trusted to observe the fair processes essential to maintaining the rule of law, how can we expect the public to respect the process?" -- the Honorable Edith Jones to Harvard's Federalist Club "American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition, Judge Tells Harvard Law School" 2/28/03