NationStates Jolt Archive

Nevada is legalizing domestic partnerships, with the state Assembly voting Sunday evening to override a veto by the governor, officials said.

The Assembly voted 28-14 to override Gov. Jim Gibbons' veto of a domestic partner bill, said Kathy Alden of the chief clerk's office.

With the vote, Nevada will extend most of the rights given to married couples to couples in domestic partnerships, including those of the same sex.

The bill will take effect on October 1.

The Nevada Senate overrode the the governor's veto 14-7 on Saturday.

So Nevada adds to the list of growing states extending same sex marriage benefits. Unclear right now, to me, is what rights WON'T be extended, but at least it's a step in a positive direction.

So for those keeping count, 4 states have legal same sex marriages: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Maine. In addition, Vermont has passed a law allowing same sex marriage, that will take effect in September. New Hampshire is in the works to legislatively pass it, but it's been sent back to committee to rework after failing to override a governor's veto. New York is considering legislation. New Jersey has civil unions that grant, at the state level, identical rights.

Hawaii's Civil Union bill was put to sleep. not killed. just put off untill next session. so we'll see.

Activist judges!....

I mean....er.....well.....

go team USA one day you might be comparable to the likes of Slovenia and Uruguay!

(well I can't put much else can I?:p)

Good, progress, step in the right direction, wish we had gay marriage over here etc.

new mexico cant get a civil unions bill out of committee because they are terrified that if civil unions get passed it will end up being the same as same sex marriage.

the horror!

This is moving in the direction of a patchwork, where you have to consult lawyers every time you consider moving to a new state, to see what kind of "partnership" or "union" exists there, if any, and whether what you did in the previous state will get recognition; and on a cross-country drive if one of you gets sick you have to go on the web to see if it would be safe to go to a hospital in this state or if it would be better to try making the next boundary. In some respects this is not progress: it gets further and further from the ideal of us being treated like anybody else.

Yes the preferred way for Same sex unions to happen, with the legislatures passing them.

Good, progress, step in the right direction, wish we had gay marriage over here etc.

We do. At least, in Scotland, we do. It's just called civil partnership. It's legally equivilent, in all ways, to marriage.

We do. At least, in Scotland, we do. It's just called civil partnership. It's legally equivilent, in all ways, to marriage.

Isn't the Scottish one, the one with the Sheep clause ???

eww gross. Human rights are icky.

eww gross. Human rights are icky.

as opposed to their lefts? :D

We do. At least, in Scotland, we do. It's just called civil partnership. It's legally equivilent, in all ways, to marriage.

Is it? I thought it was harder to get a divorce, plus some other things that I can't remember.

Is it? I thought it was harder to get a divorce, plus some other things that I can't remember.

We've had it since like 2005 or something. Are you that far behind the times or are you being sarky?

Is it? I thought it was harder to get a divorce, plus some other things that I can't remember.

Honestly? I don't know. I'm not really into the whole marriage/civil union thing. It seems like a profoundly stupid idea. It doesn't interest me.

Honestly? I don't know. I'm not really into the whole marriage/civil union thing. It seems like a profoundly stupid idea. It doesn't interest me.

But it's good that people can, no?

Honestly? I don't know. I'm not really into the whole marriage/civil union thing. It seems like a profoundly stupid idea. It doesn't interest me.

While I agree marriage is inherently dumb.
Freedom means you don't protect people from their own stupidity.

While I agree marriage is inherently dumb.
Freedom means you don't protect people from their own stupidity.

I'm generally uninterested in lofty ideals. I'm only interested in me. I do what I want, when I want, already.

I'm generally uninterested in lofty ideals. I'm only interested in me. I do what I want, when I want, already.

God, I'd love to do that.

God, I'd love to do that.

It comes at a price.

It comes at a price.

Prison?

I'm generally uninterested in lofty ideals. I'm only interested in me. I do what I want, when I want, already.

I try to live by that Philosophy but I keep getting arrested for walking around naked.

Neo Art is becoming a celebrity here, he has gotten me off so many times. It is practically a monthly visit for him.

Prison?

Possibly, yes. A large percentage of my actions are classified as illegal, there's always a chance I'll be caught (and be unable to pin the blame on another/manipulate my way out of it).

Possibly, yes. A large percentage of my actions are classified as illegal, there's always a chance I'll be caught (and be unable to pin the blame on another/manipulate my way out of it).

What are you, head of the Mafia?

What are you, head of the Mafia?

No, I'm a serial killer.

No, I'm a serial killer.

Argh! I hate it when you mess with my head! :mad:

*hides just in case*

No, I'm a serial killer.

you do look like Jeffrey Dahmer.

you do look like Jeffrey Dahmer.

Yuck, his MO was so, uh, unclean.

We've had it since like 2005 or something. Are you that far behind the times or are you being sarky?His question wasn't about the existence of the civil unions, but about the claim that they were identical to marriage in every respect.

Naveda doesnt want to miss out on tourism dollars. people can get Civil unioned jsut as easily 24/7 now as they can get married. The law is profit.

Yea for the Nevada Legislature for telling Gibbons where to shove it.

I WOULD like to let it be known that Gov. Gibbons, when vetoing the original bill, said that lawyers could draw up contracts that give all the rights that this law does AND Nevada has a constitutional amendment forbidding same sex marriages. He noted that he was defending marriage with his veto.

This is the same Jim Gibbons whose wife has filed for divorce, alleging that he has had two mistresses, one of which apparently got a state cell phone for Jimmy to sext her on his state phone... Oh, and did we mention the sexual assult charge?

Yea for the Nevada Legislature for telling Gibbons where to shove it.

I WOULD like to let it be known that Gov. Gibbons, when vetoing the original bill, said that lawyers could draw up contracts that give all the rights that this law does AND Nevada has a constitutional amendment forbidding same sex marriages. He noted that he was defending marriage with his veto.

This is the same Jim Gibbons whose wife has filed for divorce, alleging that he has had two mistresses, one of which apparently got a state cell phone for Jimmy to sext her on his state phone... Oh, and did we mention the sexual assult charge?

And if the gays would stop getting married this never would have happened!

This is the same Jim Gibbons whose wife has filed for divorce, alleging that he has had two mistresses, one of which apparently got a state cell phone for Jimmy to sext her on his state phone... Oh, and did we mention the sexual assult charge?
There was a charming article in the Standard recently, where a guy literally argued that we can't allow gay marriage because the primary function of traditional marriage is to control women's bodies and women's sexuality.
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp?pg=1

He's right.

That's why gay marriage absolutely positively IS a threat to traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is about controlling women and their sexuality while allowing men the freedom to pretty much do whatever the fuck they want. Gibbons' affairs aren't an example of him failing to live his own values...they're a perfect example of a man who is adhering to the traditional model of marriage. Adultery is an intrinsic part of traditional marriage. And, for that matter, so is rape. Traditional marriage doesn't exactly value consent from women, after all.

Is it? I thought it was harder to get a divorce, plus some other things that I can't remember.

I believe there is one of the categories for divorce that isn't for disolving civil partnerships (adultery I think) but which arguably is both covered by other categories and due to a peculiarity of how adultery is defined in english law (indeed, may be a bit different in Scotland).

There is also a question of children resulting from IVF treatment - the partner is not automatically given parental rights (as they would be if opposite-sex couple) but recent legislation means that such children do not need to have a father registered, so the steps are strongly towards sorting that bit out as well (at the very least a random genetic father could not try and override the partner on it).

So yes, I'd say it's 99.99% of rights not 100% but then a lot of the issues come from gender definitions in other laws rather than the marriage legislation per se.

There was a charming article in the Standard recently, where a guy literally argued that we can't allow gay marriage because the primary function of traditional marriage is to control women's bodies and women's sexuality.
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp?pg=1


Wow Bottle, that truly was a gem of ignorance and stupidity there. I fear the author may still be caught in the 50s somewhere along the line and completely missing the point of marriage. He basically seems to be arguing that heterosexual couples marry because they are effectively forced to do so by social and family pressures and only stay married because of the same pressures.

Wow Bottle, that truly was a gem of ignorance and stupidity there. I fear the author may still be caught in the 50s somewhere along the line and completely missing the point of marriage. He basically seems to be arguing that heterosexual couples marry because they are effectively forced to do so by social and family pressures and only stay married because of the same pressures.
Can you imagine being his wife, and reading that he views marriage as some heroic sacrifice that he's only making for the good of society? Mmmmm, romance!

Can you imagine being his wife, and reading that he views marriage as some heroic sacrifice that he's only making for the good of society? Mmmmm, romance!

I'll have you know that as a good and dutiful husband who engages in missionary style sex twice a week with the lights off, he doesn't let his wife read. Ergo, she doesn't see his sacrifice.

Can you imagine being his wife, and reading that he views marriage as some heroic sacrifice that he's only making for the good of society? Mmmmm, romance!

Well I believe according to the article, he's been married 3 times (or so he implies), couldn't think why... :rolleyes:

Freedom means you don't protect people from their own stupidity.
If only. Unfortunately, "Freedom" also means that you don't protect other people from your stupidity.

Well I believe according to the article, he's been married 3 times (or so he implies), couldn't think why... :rolleyes:

Indeed. I wouldn't think anyone would marry him in the first place.

This is good news when Iowa does something like that, because Iowa is the breadbasket of America and in the Heartland and it's good and wholesome and traditional.

It's not going to mean anything, in comparison, when Nevada does this. Nevada has Las Vegas. To the conservative religious right, it's like an announcement that from now on Hell will have an improved central heating system.

Yuck, his MO was so, uh, unclean.

Patrick Bateman then?

Patrick Bateman then?

His MO is stupid. Messy.

His MO is stupid. Messy.

So what would yours be then?

So what would yours be then?

Perfectly clean.

If only. Unfortunately, "Freedom" also means that you don't protect other people from your stupidity.

I don't see how two people getting married harms you in anyway.

This is good news when Iowa does something like that, because Iowa is the breadbasket of America and in the Heartland and it's good and wholesome and traditional.

It's not going to mean anything, in comparison, when Nevada does this. Nevada has Las Vegas. To the conservative religious right, it's like an announcement that from now on Hell will have an improved central heating system.
On the contrary, Nevada was, sadly, one of the first states to get a "defense of marriage" amendment. Don't let the libertarian streak of Nevada fool you, the cow counties are VERY conservative.