Nevadans ought to divorce themselves from the Vote Yes on 2 campaign by voting against the initiative in November. On the surface and for all legal purposes, the law is meaningless and redundant. Marriage doesn't need the "protection" claimed by Question 2, but we all need protection from the damage that can be done by it.
In a recent brochure designed to answer questions about this "protection of marriage" initiative, it was asked why we should vote yes on Question 2. The answer began by saying "Nevadans agree that everyone is free to make lifestyle choices."
We think Nevadans have a long tradition of freedom when it comes to lifestyle choices and that if those choices do not hurt anyone else, we shouldn't concern ourselves.
We don't see how heterosexual people are in any way impacted by how others live. You may not like how your neighbor or co-worker (or, in many cases, brothers and sisters and sons and daughters) lives, but it is overwhelmingly none of your business.
The brochure also asked what a "No" vote would mean. It goes on to answer that "Current Nevada law requires marriage to be between a man and a woman, but it does not protect us from having to recognize 'same sex marriages' or 'civil unions' from other states like Vermont." Protect us? From what? Does the failure of this initiative somehow require us to change our lifestyle? We think it's just homophobia and sends the message that Nevada is the epitome of hypocrisy.
We certainly respect the rights of those who are pushing Question 2 to put forward their ideas. We all hold important personal and religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean we should ask the government to impose them on everyone. There are governments in this world where the state religion is the constitution. We doubt you'd find many Americans thinking this is a good model.
Our strength is in this separation and in the personal freedoms we all deem important.
However, we do think Question 2 is mean spirited and wrong-headed. We also think it's redundant and a waste of taxpayer time and money. We think the good of the citizenry can be better served by dealing with the very real problems of our state (think drug abuse) instead of "protecting" us from what is truly none of our business. This measure protects only the irrational fears of those who believe that your business is their business.