I found this interesting on the Nevada ballot

[Rhys]

State Question number 2

Amendment to the Nevada Constitution

An initiative relating to the definition of marriage

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to provide that: "Only a marriage between a male and a female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state"

I find this odd that a state with such a freewheeling reputation would (1) ballot this to begin with and (2) the oddly conservative responses I have heard regarding this question. You would *think* with the amount of marriage traffic this state does, that same sex marriage would be yet another way to generate revenue. According to what I have heard, the LDS Church (huge in this state) does want it passed, because if it were not, they would be forced to accept same sex marriage, and they oppose on religious grounds.

It also seems to me that we voted on this before. I remember the big hysterical "PROTECT MARRIAGE!!" signs around town from sometime this summer. What I am wondering is, why the second balloting...and why the hell don't we just legalise it, like the marijuana issue (also on the same ballot) and tax the living shit out of it.

That makes sense to me...input from fellow Nevadans?

 

[Rhys]

arguments for passage:

...While a Nevada statute provides that marriage may only be between a male and a female, current law provides that a legal marriage that took place outside of Nevada is generally given effect under the "full faith and credit clause" of the United States Constitution. Proponets argue that if same gender marriages ever become legal in another state (say California) Under FFand CC Nevada could be required to recognise such marriages entered into legally in another state.


So if California allows same sex marriage, then under the law as it stands now, Nevada would have to recognise it as a legal marriage as well.

God help us. I could see Sigfreid and Roy's wedding now.

 

[Pyper]

God help us. I could see Sigfreid and Roy's wedding now.

Aww, that would be so sweet.

 

[Rhys]

Aww, that would be so sweet.

Tiger shit all over the Strip...

The batchlor parties would be a hoot though...

 

[Rhys]

from arguments against passage:

The proposed ammendment singles out one group of Nevadans for different treatment in our Constitution. ...discrimination occurs because the rights and privileges of a marriage (comment: see IRS and the marriage penalty on this one...some damned privilege but I digress) are denied to couples of the same gender. Blah blah blah...stronger arguement IMHO, the proposed ammendment is contrary to Nevada's public policy that supports equalilty and civil rights for all Nevadans.

Okay lets legalise porn, brothels, strippers, 24 hour gaming and alcohol, marijuana...but no mahu's allowed.

uh. huh. makes no sense to me.

 

[Rhys]

where is lavender...

sigh. she would debate this with me....

 

[A Desert Rose]

State Question number 2

Amendment to the Nevada Constitution

An initiative relating to the definition of marriage

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to provide that: "Only a marriage between a male and a female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state"

I find this odd that a state with such a freewheeling reputation would (1) ballot this to begin with and (2) the oddly conservative responses I have heard regarding this question. You would *think* with the amount of marriage traffic this state does, that same sex marriage would be yet another way to generate revenue. According to what I have heard, the LDS Church (huge in this state) does want it passed, because if it were not, they would be forced to accept same sex marriage, and they oppose on religious grounds.

It also seems to me that we voted on this before. I remember the big hysterical "PROTECT MARRIAGE!!" signs around town from sometime this summer. What I am wondering is, why the second balloting...and why the hell don't we just legalise it, like the marijuana issue (also on the same ballot) and tax the living shit out of it.

That makes sense to me...input from fellow Nevadans?

Two points from a fellow Nevadan:

#1. The LDS church is under no obligation to accept anything. They are a church and private. There is no agency or organization or government regulation that can force any church to accept any thing.

#2. It is on the ballot again because it is a proposed constitutional amendment and as such it has to be voted one twice and passed twice by majority vote for it to become an amendment to the Nevada state constitution.

This is important to note regarding the proposed marijuana vote. It will have to pass this vote and then again in 2 years before it is an amendment.

 

[SINthysist]

Better to admit gay marriages now than to wait for the government to send in the troops and enforce it's definition of marriage on the State...