Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Bush proposal gets mixed response from Nevadans

Most lawmakers oppose amendment banning gay marriage

President Bush's call for a constitutional ban on gay marriages received a mixed response from Nevadans in Congress on Tuesday.

Four of the state's five federal lawmakers said they believe marriage should be limited to between a man and a woman. Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley said she was "uncomfortable" imposing a definition on a term that has religious as well as legal connotations.

The Nevadans also varied on whether the U.S. Constitution should be changed to cement the view that legal marriage should be limited to people of opposite sexes.

Sen. John Ensign, a Republican, said he planned to support an amendment and was studying how one should be worded.

Ensign said the action is warranted by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision ordering state officials to recognize same-sex marriages as of May 17.

Ensign said the courts are changing the law. "I think it is going to be up to the legislative branch to change it back."

"I would rather us do it, people who are accountable to the voters, rather than some unaccountable, unelected judge."

Republican Rep. Jon Porter said he supported Bush and favored a constitutional amendment "in concept."

"I think a legal marriage should be between a man and a woman," he said.

Berkley and Sen. Harry Reid, a fellow Democrat, said they opposed amending the Constitution to restrict same-sex unions. Rep. Jim Gibbons, a Republican, also questioned whether it was necessary.

"I oppose gay marriage," Reid said. He believes protections already are in place.

Richard Ziser, a Republican challenging Reid for his seat, said the president had no choice but to seek a federal amendment. Ziser led the drive for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Nevada.

Ziser said every candidate for elected office in Nevada will now have to a take a stand on the marriage issue.

"That has got to impact my campaign because I led that issue," Ziser said. "We've got the commander in chief of the United States of America saying we've got to do what Rich Ziser did in Nevada."

Ziser said the ruling by the Massachusetts justices and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to allow same-sex marriages to be performed in his city have proven -- two years later -- the argument used by Ziser's Coalition for the Protection of Marriage in seeking the state constitutional amendment.

"We knew we had to protect it constitutionally in order to prevent the judges and courts from forcing same-sex marriage on the people when they don't really want it," Ziser said.

Bob Bellis, director of the Gay and Lesbian Center of Las Vegas, said Ziser stands to lose big to Reid.

"I hope he spends all of his money on the race," Bellis added.

Bellis also said he thought Bush's decision could create a backlash against the president.

"I'm hoping that it will make an impact where people will realize that it's a specifically discriminatory constitutional amendment," Bellis said.

Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition to same-sex marriages and allows states to pass laws to refuse to recognize homosexual unions. Nevada is among 38 states that have passed such laws.

"The Constitution was designed to establish and protect inalienable rights and freedoms," Reid said. "I do not believe the founding fathers intended for the Constitution to be used in this manner."

Berkley said the proposed constitutional change would take away an individual's rights to pursue happiness, and "I am uncomfortable using the Constitution to take away other Americans' rights as human beings."

Gibbons noted more than 70 percent of Nevada voters passed the Question 2 ballot measure in 2000 and 2002 banning same-sex marriages in the state.

"Right now there are proper protections, both in Nevada state law and federal law, to defend marriage as being between one man and one woman," Gibbons said. "At this time, I am not sure if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is necessary."