No compromise on marriage equality

Last Tuesday was a historic day for marriage equality in Nevada and in the nation. Rarely have we seen the country shift so decisively towards justice over the course of just a few years, a truly hopeful sign of a progressive future.

Even the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) experienced a seismic shift in attitude this past month. According to an article in BuzzFeed titled “At CPAC, the Marriage Fight is Over,” conservatives in favor of marriage equality spoke to a big crowd at their annual conference while opponents of gay rights proclaimed their views to a mostly empty room.

In Nevada, a hearing was held on a proposed constitutional amendment, SJR 13, sponsored by Sen. Tick Segerblom, D-Las Vegas. The measure begins the five-year process of removing marriage discrimination from the state’s constitution after voters approved the provision in 2000 and 2002, convinced by conservative groups that Nevada would be forced to recognize gay marriages from other states.

Meanwhile, on the same day on the other side of the country, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether Proposition 8, a California voter initiative to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, violates the U.S. Constitution. The court’s decision won’t be known for months, but it could directly affect Nevada’s law. If the justices decide same-sex marriage cannot be banned in the eight states like Nevada that have approved the “benefits and burdens of marriage through civil unions but without the designation of marriage,” Nevada’s constitutional provision will not stand.

Nevada is a state that allows “everything but marriage” civil unions based on our domestic partnership law, approved by the 2009 Legislature by a vote of exactly two-thirds, after Gov. Jim Gibbons vetoed the measure. Earlier that session, advocates were offered a compromise by then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, to replace the bill with language of “reciprocal beneficiaries,” essentially allowing any two adults to have power of attorney and name each other as an insurance beneficiary, something that was already allowed but through a more cumbersome process.

Some advocates wanted to take the Raggio deal, reasoning that “something was better than nothing” and anything that moved Nevada in the right direction was meaningful. Others argued, successfully, that this was a point in time when there should be no compromise, preferring defeat over a reform that was little more than existing law.

The final vote was a nail-biter as rounding up the last few votes to get to two-thirds depended on finding solutions to objections raised by individual legislators, amid increasing pressure from religious leaders, especially on the Mormon and Catholic legislators.

In the Senate, a gay son convinced his Republican father to support the measure, much like the conversion of Sen. Rob Portman last month when he announced he favored gay marriage so that his son would “have the same opportunities as his brother and sister” to find happiness through marriage.

In the Assembly, the last vote was secured by Speaker Barbara Buckley through one-on-one conversations with a member who needed to be convinced that his wife would not be able to withdraw an inheritance from his children should he die, and she establish a domestic partnership. The issue had little to do with civil unions, except in his tortured mind, but the Speaker was able to patiently address his irrational fears and convince him to join in an historic victory for civil rights in Nevada.

While Nevada awaits the Supreme Court’s decision, activists are once again split on how hard to push for replacing the prohibition on gay marriage with an affirmative vote for marriage equality. While compromise is a hallmark of the legislative process, on the matter of equal rights, compromise is just not good enough.