Comments on: Nevada Senate Passes Domestic Partnerships http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/22/10885 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:03:35 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Ephilei http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/22/10885/comment-page-1#comment-39121 Ephilei Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:56:42 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10885#comment-39121 <i>bill’s sponsor is will work </i> Should be "bill’s sponsor will work" bill’s sponsor is will work

Should be “bill’s sponsor will work”

]]> By: Zeke http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/22/10885/comment-page-1#comment-39003 Zeke Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:11:16 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10885#comment-39003 To be fair, and to be accurate, Raggio didn't say that he had GAY friends in domestic partnerships. He said he had FRIENDS in domestic partnerships. If I understand the legislation correctly, it will be available to straight and gay couples. It seems plausible to me that he does have friends in domestic partnerships who think the legislation goes too far, but they are STRAIGHT couples who have the option of marrying but probably chose not to for the very reason that they didn't want all of the RESPONSIBILITIES of marriage. Such people would very likely complain that the domestic partner legislation goes too far. Frankly I don't think straight people should have a whole lot of say in what this legislation covers. They shouldn't be allowed to strip it down to basics that THEY want so that they get TWO legal options while at the same time limiting the ONLY option offered to gay couples. Anyway, I think it's likely that if Raggio is telling the truth about his domestic partnership friends, they're straight. To be fair, and to be accurate, Raggio didn’t say that he had GAY friends in domestic partnerships. He said he had FRIENDS in domestic partnerships.

If I understand the legislation correctly, it will be available to straight and gay couples.

It seems plausible to me that he does have friends in domestic partnerships who think the legislation goes too far, but they are STRAIGHT couples who have the option of marrying but probably chose not to for the very reason that they didn’t want all of the RESPONSIBILITIES of marriage. Such people would very likely complain that the domestic partner legislation goes too far.

Frankly I don’t think straight people should have a whole lot of say in what this legislation covers. They shouldn’t be allowed to strip it down to basics that THEY want so that they get TWO legal options while at the same time limiting the ONLY option offered to gay couples.

Anyway, I think it’s likely that if Raggio is telling the truth about his domestic partnership friends, they’re straight.

]]> By: Nevada Blue http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/22/10885/comment-page-1#comment-38979 Nevada Blue Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:10:17 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10885#comment-38979 I'm getting sick of "my gay friends" too, along with black, women, Islamic, Christian friends. Support of the statement should be demanded every time. And while there is always the possiblility of gaining new perspectives from "insider" information, no one person represents a whole group anyway. With Raggio, I can also see a situation where maybe he yells at some poor employee that he knows is gay, "Now they've gone too far; don't you agree?" "well, yes I guess so, though I'd really like to see my partner if he becomes ill." I’m getting sick of “my gay friends” too, along with black, women, Islamic, Christian friends. Support of the statement should be demanded every time.

And while there is always the possiblility of gaining new perspectives from “insider” information, no one person represents a whole group anyway.

With Raggio, I can also see a situation where maybe he yells at some poor employee that he knows is gay, “Now they’ve gone too far; don’t you agree?”
“well, yes I guess so, though I’d really like to see my partner if he becomes ill.”

]]> By: Timothy Kincaid http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/22/10885/comment-page-1#comment-38963 Timothy Kincaid Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:40:48 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10885#comment-38963 Brian and Christopher, My <a href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/15/10698" rel="nofollow">first commentary</a> on the bill has a link to <a href="http://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Bills/SB/SB283.pdf" rel="nofollow">the language</a> (pdf). The legislative counsel digest is: <blockquote>This bill establishes a domestic partnership as a new type of civil contract recognized in the State of Nevada. Under the provisions of this bill, domestic partners have the same rights, protections, benefits, responsibilities, obligations and duties as do parties to any other civil contract created pursuant to title 11 of NRS. This bill also clarifies that a domestic partnership is not a marriage for the purposes of Section 21 of Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution.</blockquote> Title 11 deals with marriage. Brian and Christopher,

My first commentary on the bill has a link to the language (pdf). The legislative counsel digest is:

This bill establishes a domestic partnership as a new type of civil contract recognized in the State of Nevada. Under the provisions of this bill, domestic partners have the same rights, protections, benefits, responsibilities, obligations and duties as do parties to any other civil contract created pursuant to title 11 of NRS. This bill also clarifies that a domestic partnership is not a marriage for the purposes of Section 21 of Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution.

Title 11 deals with marriage.

]]> By: Christopher Waldrop http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/22/10885/comment-page-1#comment-38949 Christopher Waldrop Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:02:28 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10885#comment-38949 I'd like to know what "most of the same rights as married couples" means as well. And if Raggio is honest and if he really has gay friends who have a problem with the bill, they should come out and say what exactly in it "goes too far". If the bill granted same-sex couples all the rights granted marriage I think I'd have an idea of what "too far" meant. I'm not saying I'd agree--I think same-sex couples should either be given all the same rights as heterosexual married couples or the government should get out of the marriage business. I'm just saying that I think I'd know what their problem was. It's hard to know, though, how someone could complain that a bill that grants some rights but still gives same-sex unions a lesser status "goes too far". The great thing is this is Nevada. Remember in 2000 when Nevada voters passed a law banning same-sex marriages? The funniest thing I heard at the time was from Lewis Black who said (I'm paraphrasing) this is a state where you can throw away $15,000 at a roulette table then marry a hooker you've known for twenty minutes at a drive-through wedding chapel. But they wouldn't want same-sex marriages because it might make Nevada seem sleazy. I’d like to know what “most of the same rights as married couples” means as well. And if Raggio is honest and if he really has gay friends who have a problem with the bill, they should come out and say what exactly in it “goes too far”. If the bill granted same-sex couples all the rights granted marriage I think I’d have an idea of what “too far” meant. I’m not saying I’d agree–I think same-sex couples should either be given all the same rights as heterosexual married couples or the government should get out of the marriage business. I’m just saying that I think I’d know what their problem was. It’s hard to know, though, how someone could complain that a bill that grants some rights but still gives same-sex unions a lesser status “goes too far”.

The great thing is this is Nevada. Remember in 2000 when Nevada voters passed a law banning same-sex marriages? The funniest thing I heard at the time was from Lewis Black who said (I’m paraphrasing) this is a state where you can throw away $15,000 at a roulette table then marry a hooker you’ve known for twenty minutes at a drive-through wedding chapel. But they wouldn’t want same-sex marriages because it might make Nevada seem sleazy.

]]> By: Happy Gay News for April 22, 2009 « Happy Gay News http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/22/10885/comment-page-1#comment-38926 Happy Gay News for April 22, 2009 « Happy Gay News Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:01:29 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10885#comment-38926 [...] Read more on Box Turtle Bulletin… [...] [...] Read more on Box Turtle Bulletin… [...]

]]> By: Brian Torwelle http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/22/10885/comment-page-1#comment-38922 Brian Torwelle Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:21:28 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=10885#comment-38922 "most of the same rights as married couples"??? What does that mean exactly? “most of the same rights as married couples”???

What does that mean exactly?

]]>