Nevada Legislature: Supporters call for equal benefits as married couples

A Nevada Assembly panel heard emotional testimony Friday on a plan aimed at giving domestic partners, whether gay or straight, many of the rights and benefits that Nevada offers to married couples.

Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas, the openly gay sponsor of SB283, told Assembly Judiciary Committee members that domestic partnerships have been upheld across the country, and that at least 80 of the nation's top 100 companies offer domestic partnership benefits.

"This is about fairness and equality," Parks said in urging approval of SB283, which faces a veto by Gov. Jim Gibbons if it reaches his desk. The state Senate voted 12-9 for the plan previously.

Assemblyman Ty Cobb, R-Reno, asked why domestic partners couldn't just sign private contracts, while Assemblyman James Ohrenschall, D-Las Vegas, asked how much those contracts might cost.

Family law attorney Kimberly Surratt of Reno, supporting the bill, said contracts that deal with property, children and estate planning aren't foolproof. She added that fees for comprehensive contracts can cost upward of $60,000.

"You can't contract your way into all of the statutes that are needed. I've tried." Surratt said.

Neal Anderson, minister at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Northern Nevada, also endorsed the bill, saying he was "called to speak out against injustice and in favor of civil rights."

"We want you to know that there are people of faith who support these kinds of relationships," Anderson said adding it's wrong to deny any couples the rights the bill would provide them.

Assemblywoman Ellen Spiegel, D-Henderson, also favored SB283, saying domestic partnerships "aren't just for the gay community." She said she was denied access to the home of a former boyfriend after he died because they weren't married.

"I know what it's like to lose a partner, be in pain and then be thrown out on the streets because I didn't have any rights to my partner," Spiegel said.

Janine Hansen and Lynn Chapman of the conservative Nevada Families Eagle Forum opposed the bill, saying its description of domestic partnerships closely mirrors the concept of marriage and potentially violates personal religious rights.

"If it does pass, people are going to be asking me what the difference is between a domestic partnership and marriage," Chapman said. "I'm going to tell them one starts with a d and one starts with an m."

Juanita Clark of Charleston Neighborhood Preservation in Las Vegas also opposed SB283, saying it tries to circumvent a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that passed in 2002.

"I pose the question of why there has been this amazing verbal gymnastics to piggyback this, if you will, with a constitutional amendment that was passed by a vote of the people," Clark said.

As amended, the bill states that no public employers in Nevada are required to provide health care benefits to or for the domestic partner of an officer or employee. But any public or private employer may voluntarily provide such benefits.

The revised measure also says domestic partnerships simply involve filing of paperwork with the secretary of state and are not to be considered as marriages.