Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Nevadans say leave Constitution alone

Poll: Half oppose gay marriage amendment

Click image for enlargement.

Despite two lopsided elections that resulted in a state constitution ban on gay marriage, Nevada voters are cool to the idea of a similar amendment to the U.S. Constitution, according to a Review-Journal poll.

Fifty percent of likely voters polled last week said they would oppose a federal amendment. Forty-three percent supported an amendment, and 7 percent were undecided. The poll, conducted for the Review-Journal by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research of Washington, D.C., has a 4 percentage-point margin of error.

Opposition to the federal amendment is higher among Democrats, 65 percent, and in Clark County, 43 percent, while 53 percent of rural Nevadans support the amendment.

Joan Howarth, associate dean for clinical studies at UNLV's Boyd School of Law, said Nevadans, like voters nationwide, are skeptical about amending the 1787 document.

"Many people in Nevada believe that changing the Constitution should only be done in cases in which it's absolutely necessary," Howarth said. "Voters in Nevada are also often sympathetic to state's rights issues."

Howarth said Nevadans realize the state's unique gaming and brothel laws, for example, might not have been possible under some amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Richard Ziser, the man who led the successful ballot initiatives in 2000 and 2002 to amend Nevada's constitution, said he would typically side with the state's rights crowd. But he believes gay marriage poses a significant enough threat to warrant a federal amendment.

Ziser, a Republican who is challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, said if gay marriage is authorized in another state, a couple moving to Nevada could challenge the state for recognition under the Constitution's full faith and credit clause.

"Our law is safe here in Nevada, but once it's challenged to the U.S. Supreme Court, we know the judges do what the people don't want them to do," Ziser said. "We should fear the courts."

The state ballot initiative passed in 2000 with 70 percent of the vote. In 2002, it had the support of 67 percent of voters.

On Saturday, Ziser joined other delegates to the Clark County Republican Party in approving a platform supporting a federal marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The platform also states the party does not tolerate discrimination on the basis "of immutable characteristics of race, ethnicity, nationality or sex, or on the basis of religion."

However, the same platform states: "We oppose any special privileges, rights or accommodations based on sexual or behavioral preferences."

Ziser said a same-sex relationship "goes against nature."

"It goes against the very nature of a concept of marriage: a man and a woman," he added. "We're protecting children within that relationship."

But Howarth believes some of those polled also may be opposed to limiting rights in the U.S. Constitution.

"Our tradition has been to amend the constitution to expand constitutional rights," Howarth said.

Brad Coker, managing partner of Mason-Dixon, tested Nevada voters on the 2000 and 2002 ballot initiatives and said he didn't believe there was a shift toward support of gay marriage.

"We would have found the majority of people are opposed to gay marriage if we had asked that," Coker said. "What we're finding around the country is that people oppose gay marriage and also oppose the constitutional amendment."

Dan Hinkley, president and founder of the Stonewall Democratic Club of Las Vegas, said he believes Nevada's attitudes may be "coming around."

"The movement is refreshing from the 70-to-30 beating we took for two election cycles to leading 50 to 43," Hinkley said. "People are beginning to understand that this is a civil rights issue and it's not really a religious-marriage issue. When people begin to focus on rights being taken, they see it differently."

Hinkley also said he found the Clark County GOP platform to be "mean and based on a totally false premise."

"They're arguing that homosexuality is a choice," Hinkley said. "It's not. You're born black, you're born Hispanic and you're born gay or lesbian."