Is it "Back Door" "Domestic Partnership Legislation" in Nevada?

..

I just gotta say, outright, I don't care about this legislation issue itself. So, I don't want anyone bothering me about gay rights or marriage protection. I don't care. What I care about is that lawmakers can be so "insane" and cater to special interest groups, pass legislation, override a veto and it is all done by a whisper in Nevada.

This is a perfect example of special interest groups taking control of the legislature in Nevada, through the front door or the back door, it's all the same. In this case, it's either the casino industry that took over or it's the Gay/Lesbian contingent that took over? Same result, doesn't matter who, it matters how.

So, here it is. Nevada votes for a constitutional amendment to "define marriage as being between a man and a woman" in, like 2002. I'm not wasting the time to check the year. There is a ridiculous amount of media attention for and against it. I mean ridiculous, especially for a state with legalized prostitution, gambling and the home of Las Vegas. The Gay/Lesbian community threaten a boycott of Nevada, whatever, nobody can effectively boycott Las Vegas. The voters tell them to "piss off" and vote in favor of the constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Since then, we have heard nothing on this issue in Nevada. We've heard more about California's debate over Prop 8, their Gay/Lesbian attacks on churches and the alleged "travesty of justice", than we ever heard about Nevada's constitutional amendment. Certainly, if Prop 8 had gone the other way, we would be hearing the same song, just sung by the other choir.

Now, fast forward 2009. A "domestic partnership" (DP) law is passed in the Nevada Legislature allowing for DP's with certain rights and privileges, but with a law that appears to be some very sloppy work. This law will create more legal disputes in the courts over that lack of a clear definition of a DP, than we will hear over whether it is constitutional. It is very poorly written. Maybe that was the intent. The governor vetoes the bill and it is overriden by the Nevada Legislature. Like I said, in Nevada we barely heard a whisper about any of this. It passes as if it were a road improvement bill in Ely. I had to hear about the bill, the veto and the override from my gay friends in Key West, FL. So, why am I commenting? Well, because of this statement by Harrah's Entertainment:

"Harrah’s Entertainment [warns] legislators that Nevada’s tourism industry could lose the business of gays and lesbians if they fail to override Gov. Jim Gibbons’ . . . veto." (See HERE). Are you kidding me? That is the new standard for making laws in Nevada, Harrah's warnings & the Gay/Lesbian community threats?

Like I said, I don't care about the whole homosexual partnership, heterosexual marriage, consenting adult incest and polygamy debate. It is all the same to me. You are a fool if you differentiate the issues. It is all consenting adults.

What I care about: How did this LAW make it past all the voters and the Governor without a rich, full and spirited debate throughout the entire State of Nevada? It is, well, er, uh, KIND OF A BIG DEAL. Well, it rode through on the backs of a couple casinos and gay/lesbian terrorism, oh, I mean pirates, no, poor choice . . . I mean boycotts?

I wonder how far the campaign contributions will shoot into the pockets of the Nevada judges when this law reaches the Nevada courts. If the voter's don't get rid of elected judges, this issue will likely go to the highest bidder, too. I see no justice on this issue either way. I think too many people seem to be involved in a bit of a sword fight on the issues and they care way too much about their OWN agenda. The tip of the focus issue is the constitution, its legality and due process and while addressing these issues with open hands and an objective minds. So, even if we do get rid of pay for justice in Nevada (which should go a long way to get rid of the stiff competition between payoffs), the decisions made on this issue are going to be tough for Nevada judges and will have deep and long-lasting effects for Nevada.

We'll see . . .

(any apparent pun, play on words, or other reference to inappropriate material is purely coincidental and unintentional)
.