Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Nevada Democrats outvote Republicans to move domestic partnership bill along

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 07:08 PM
Original message
Nevada Democrats outvote Republicans to move domestic partnership bill along
CARSON CITY — On a party-line vote, the Assembly Judiciary Committee voted Tuesday for a bill to give domestic partners, whether gay or straight, many of the rights and benefits that Nevada offers to married couples.

Republicans were outvoted by Democrats who control the committee as SB283 moved to the full Assembly. If approved there, it must return to the Senate, where it was backed previously, for a review of Assembly amendments. Gov. Jim Gibbons has threatened to veto the plan if it reaches his desk.

Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas, the openly gay sponsor of SB283, says domestic partnerships have been upheld across the country, and that at least 80 of the nation's top 100 companies offer domestic partnership benefits.

Critics include Assemblyman Ty Cobb, R-Reno, who said domestic partners could just sign private contracts to accomplish many of the goals of SB283. He also argued the bill conflicts with the intent of Nevadans who voted in 2002 for a constitutional amendment supporting marriage between a man and a woman.

The measure provides that domestic partners have the same rights as married couples in matters such as community property and responsibility for debts. It also prohibits discrimination against domestic partners.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/breaking_news/44826482.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
enlightenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-12-09 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good.
That crap 2002 amendment was one of the nasty ones with wording so obtuse that you damn near have to have a PhD to figure out what it's really saying. A lot of people were very confused by it - both times it was placed on the ballot. Combined with a truly awful fear-mongering campaign, it swayed just enough people to pass both times by a thin margin.

Pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC