Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Senate has overridden the veto of Gov. Jim Gibbons on the controversial bill to provide certain legal rights to domestic partners. The vote was 14-7 and the bill goes to the Assembly. Fourteen votes were needed for the two-thirds majority to override the veto of the governor.
Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas, said this bill is about “equality and fairness.” This allows domestic partners, either of the same or opposite sex, the same rights and duties as marriage couples.
Opponents say these domestic partners can get the same rights by signing contracts. But Parks said getting legal contracts is cumbersome and cost prohibitive. “There is no guarantee they will stand up.”
Emphasis mine.
This is a great day for same-sex couples in Nevada.
I am dissapointed it's not marriage but something is better than nothing.
The legislature couldn't pass it if it was marriage because the people of Nevada already voted on the issue.
I'm pretty sure it isn't constitutional because the vote in 2002 (if memory serves me correctly...) was on marriage and didn't ban domestic partnerships or civil unions.
This is a great day for same-sex couples in Nevada.
YES!!! I've been so busy here on the board I haven't checked the news this morning. Thank you for posting it. Been anxiously waiting to see if they would overrides that veto. It's a great day for ANY couple who chooses not to or for any reason cannot legally wed. Now we just need to keep prodding the house to also get the 2/3 majority needed there.
Last edited by MsMcQ LV; 05-31-2009 at 09:31 AM..
Reason: additional comment
I am dissapointed it's not marriage but something is better than nothing.
The legislature couldn't pass it if it was marriage because the people of Nevada already voted on the issue.
I'm pretty sure it isn't constitutional because the vote in 2002 (if memory serves me correctly...) was on marriage and didn't ban domestic partnerships or civil unions.
Correct, the vote in 2002 (actually in both 2000 and 2002 - takes two votes, two years apart to amend the state constitution) did not mention anything other than marriage. I was extremely disappointed that it passed the first time and even more so when it passed the second. Problem was (as I saw it and still see it) there were NO political ads either way about it. In 2000 I didn't even know it was on the ballot until I went to the polls! I spent the next two years trying to get anyone I talked to to vote against it, but it passed anyway. So I'm glad to see this legislation and am keeping my fingers crossed that the house will agree with the senate on the veto override.
Correct, the vote in 2002 (actually in both 2000 and 2002 - takes two votes, two years apart to amend the state constitution) did not mention anything other than marriage. I was extremely disappointed that it passed the first time and even more so when it passed the second. Problem was (as I saw it and still see it) there were NO political ads either way about it. In 2000 I didn't even know it was on the ballot until I went to the polls! I spent the next two years trying to get anyone I talked to to vote against it, but it passed anyway. So I'm glad to see this legislation and am keeping my fingers crossed that the house will agree with the senate on the veto override.
Yeah, when Arkansas passed the bill to ban marriage for same-sex couples, civil unions, and domestic partnerships there were no ads.
People just basically knew what the issue was and they knew they didn't want gays to have legal recognition of their relationship.
With Initiated Act 1, there were ads on tv and the side AGAINST Initiated Act 1 had more money, aired ads and everything yet it passed.
The Arkansas "Family" Council did a lot of their campaigning in churches so...
I wasn't aware that the House didn't override the veto. I hope the gay community and straight allies in Nevada will call their representatives to get them to pass the bill in the House.
And virtually everyone in Arkansas probably attends church; right?
No but even the Arkansas Family Council attributed their success to the fact that they did their campaigning in churches.
They passed out flyers and got pastors to tell their congregations to vote for Initiated Act 1.
Plus Arkansas is not a bastion of gay tolerance anyway so voters are happy to tell all the "*****s" that they aren't welcome in the state.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
