On a party-line vote, a key Assembly committee voted Tuesday for a bill to give domestic partners, whether gay or straight, many of the rights and benefits that Nevada offers to married couples.
Republicans were outvoted by Democrats who control the Judiciary Committee as SB283 moved to the full Assembly. If approved there, it must return to the Senate, where it was backed previously, for a review of Assembly amendments. Gov. Jim Gibbons has threatened to veto the plan if it reaches his desk.
Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas, the openly gay sponsor of SB283, says domestic partnerships have been upheld across the country, and that at least 80 of the nation's top 100 companies offer domestic partnership benefits.
Critics include Assemblyman Ty Cobb, R-Reno, who said domestic partners could just sign private contracts to accomplish many of the goals of SB283. He also argued the bill conflicts with the intent of Nevadans who voted in 2002 for a constitutional amendment supporting marriage between a man and a woman.
Assembly Judiciary Chairman Bernie Anderson said after the vote that Parks' bill doesn't run counter to the 2002 constitutional change because a domestic partnership "is not a marriage. In fact, to clarify it's not a marriage it states right in the bill that it's not a marriage."
"It's a pretty straightforward bill," added Anderson, D-Sparks.
The measure provides that domestic partners have the same rights as married couples in matters such as community property and responsibility for debts. It also prohibits discrimination against domestic partners.
SB283 also 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. Anderson said that paperwork process is the key element of SB283 and "answers the questions raised in the very beginning" about the legal status of such partnerships.