World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Recognition of same-sex unions in Nevada

Article Id: WHEBN0022217385
Reproduction Date:

Title: Recognition of same-sex unions in Nevada  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Same-sex marriage in the United States, Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state, Same-sex unions in the United States, Same-sex marriage in Arizona, Same-sex marriage in Colorado
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Recognition of same-sex unions in Nevada

Legal status of
same-sex relationships
Previously performed and not invalidated
  1. Can be registered also in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten
  2. Licensed in some counties in Kansas but same-sex marriage is not recognized by the state
  3. Currently legal in St. Louis, Missouri
  4. When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage

*Not yet in effect

LGBT portal

Same-sex marriage in the U.S. state of Nevada has been legal since October 9, 2014, when a federal district court judge issued an injunction against Nevada's enforcement of its ban on same-sex marriage, acting on order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had ruled two days earlier that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage was previously banned by an amendment to the Constitution of Nevada adopted in 2002.

Nevada has recognized same-sex unions since October 1, 2009, through domestic partnerships, after the state legislature enacted legislation over Governor Jim Gibbons's veto. The state maintains a domestic partnership registry that enables same-sex couples to enjoy the same rights as married couples. It allows opposite-sex couples to establish domestic partnerships as well.


Nevada voters approved Question 2, an amendment to the Constitution of Nevada that banned same-sex marriage, by 69.6% in 2000 and 67.1% in 2002.[1]

In 2013, a year before the Court of Appeals struck down Nevada's ban on same-sex marriage, the state legislature began work on legislation to repeal the constitutional ban and substitute in its place a gender-neutral definition of marriage.[1] The Senate approved the legislation on April 22 on a 12–9 vote.[2] and the Assembly passed the resolution on May 23 by a 27-14 vote.[3] It would require approval by the 2015 legislature and by voters in the 2016 election to take effect.[4]

Federal lawsuit

On April 10, 2012, Lambda Legal filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. In the case of Sevcik v. Sandoval, it argued that "No legitimate ... interest exists to exclude same-sex couples from the historic and highly venerated institution of marriage, especially where the State already grants lesbians and gay men access to almost all substantive spousal rights and responsibilities through registered domestic partnership." The case raises equal protection claims but does not assert a fundamental right to marry.[5]

On November 29, 2012 Judge Robert C. Jones ruled against the plaintiffs, holding that "the maintenance of the traditional institution of civil marriage as between one man and one woman is a legitimate state interest".[6] The decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[7]

In February 2014, the state withdrew its brief defending Nevada's ban on same-sex marriage. Governor Sandoval stated: "It has become clear that this case is no longer defensible in court".[8] On October 7, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the federal district court in Nevada and remanded it back to the district court, ordering it to issue an injunction to bar enforcement of the Nevada's amendment banning same-sex marriage.[9][10] The court held that Nevada's ban on same-sex marriage constituted a violation of same-sex couples' Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.[11] On October 9, Judge James C. Mahan issued the injunction and same-sex couples began obtaining marriage licenses.[12]

Domestic partnership

Senate Bill 283, legislation creating domestic partnerships in which unmarried couples–both same-sex couples and different-sex couples–would have most of the rights of married couples was sponsored by openly gay Democratic Senator David Parks of Las Vegas. To attract support he modified his original draft so that the legislation exempted both private and public employers from having to provide health care benefits to their employees' domestic partners.[13] It passed the Senate on April 21, 2009, on a 12-9 vote. The Nevada Assembly passed the legislation 26–14 on May 15. Neither house of the legislature had passed the bill with the two-thirds vote needed to override the governor's veto. On May 25, Republican Governor Jim Gibbons vetoed the legislation. In his veto message he wrote: "I believe because the voters have determined that the rights of marriage should apply only to married couples, only the voters should determine whether those rights should equally apply to domestic partners."[13]

On May 30, the Senate overrode the governor's veto on a 14-7 vote.[14] The Assembly overrode the veto the next day on a 28-14 vote.[15] The law took effect on October 1, 2009.[16] It allows opposite-sex couples to establish domestic partnerships as well.[17]

The Domestic Partnership Responsibilities Act provides many of the state-level rights, responsibilities, obligations, entitlements and benefits of marriage under the name domestic partnership. They differ from marriage in failing to qualify as marriages for federal government purposes and in lacking a requirement that businesses and governments provide health benefits to the domestic partners of their employees if they do so for the spouses of their married employees.[15][18] On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor, which challenged the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, reasoning that it violates the protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment.[19] Because that ruling, federal government benefits are extended to same-sex couples and their children in states where same-sex marriage is legal. The Domestic Partnership Responsibilities Act would now fail to qualify domestic partnerships as marriages only for the purpose of requiring businesses and governments to provide the health benefits stated above because of that ruling.

Nevada domestic partnerships differ from marriage in that a couple forming a domestic partnership must share a common residence.[18] Domestic partners must be at least 18 years old, the same age required for marriage. While someone who wishes to marry can do so at age 16 with the consent of one parent, no comparable exception is provided for someone who wishes to enter into a domestic partnership before the age of 18.[18][20]

Some rights provided by a Nevada domestic partnership are:

  • Hospital visitation, health care decision–making, and information–access rights
  • Inheritance rights, including the right to administer the estate of an intestate domestic partner, and Business succession rights
  • Rights regarding cemetery plots, disposition of remains, anatomical donations, and ordering of autopsies
  • A surviving domestic partner may bring a wrongful death action based on the death of the other partner
  • Community property, domestic violence and testimonial privileges rules apply
  • Dissolution laws apply (with only a few exceptions)
  • Domestic partners may sue on behalf of the community
  • Certain property transfers between partners are not taxed
  • State veterans benefits apply
  • Appointed and elected officials' domestic partners are subject to the same laws and regulations that apply to officials’ spouses
  • Employment benefits, including sick leave to care for a domestic partner; wages and benefits when a domestic partner is injured, and to unpaid wages upon the death of a domestic partner; unemployment and disability insurance benefits; workers' compensation coverage
  • Insurance rights, including rights under group policies, policy rights after the death of a domestic partner, conversion rights and continuing coverage rights
  • Rights related to adoption, child custody and child support

Public opinion

Public opinion for same-sex marriage in Nevada
Poll source Date(s)
Margin of
% support % opposition % no opinion
New York Times/CBS News/YouGov September 20-October 1, 2014 1,502 likely voters ± 3.4% 55% 31% 13%
Moore Information September 27-29, 2013 500 likely voters ± ?% 57% 36% -
Public Opinion Strategies 2013 500 likely voters ± ?% 54% 42% -
Public Policy Polling August 23-26, 2012 831 likely voters ± 3.4% 47% 43% 11%
Public Policy Polling July 28-31, 2011 601 Nevada voters ± 4% 45% 44% 11%

See also


  1. ^ Amendments to the Constitution of Nevada must be approved twice by voters if initiated by the people, or twice by the legislature and once by voters if initiated by the legislature.


  1. ^ "Nev. senate panel amends, passes gay marriage bill". Reno Gazette-Journal. April 11, 2013. 
  2. ^ Chereb, Sandra (April 22, 2013). "Gay marriage resolution advances in Nevada". Reno Gazette-Journal. Retrieved April 23, 2013. 
  3. ^ "Nevada Assembly backs resolution to end ban on gay marriage". Las Vegas Sun. May 23, 2013. 
  4. ^ Hagar, Ray (April 28, 2013). "Long road ahead for marriage equality in Nevada". Reno Gazette-Journal. Retrieved May 24, 2013. 
  5. ^ MetroWeekly: Chris Geidner, "Lambda Legal Files Federal Lawsuit Seeking Marriage Equality in Nevada," April 10, 2012, accessed June 4, 2012
  6. ^ Geidner, Chris (November 29, 2012). "Federal Judge Rules Nevada Can Ban Same-Sex Couples From Marriage". BuzzFeed Politics. Retrieved November 30, 2012. 
  7. ^ "Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allows Hawaii and Nevada marriage cases to be heard on a parallel track". Equality on Trial. January 7, 2013. 
  8. ^ "Gay Marriage Ban Support Slips in Nevada". The Associated Press (New York Times). February 10, 2014. Retrieved February 10, 2014. 
  9. ^ "Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Gay-Marriage Bans in Idaho, Nevadal". Wall Street Journal. October 7, 2014. 
  10. ^ "Ninth Circuit Opinion". October 7, 2014. 
  11. ^ "Appellate Court Strikes Down Gay-Marriage Bans In Idaho, Nevada". October 7, 2014. Retrieved October 7, 2014. 
  12. ^ "Federal judge signs injunction allowing gay marriage in Nevada". Reno Gazzette-Journal. October 9, 2014. Retrieved October 10, 2014. 
  13. ^ a b Vogel, Ed (May 25, 2009). "Gibbons vetoes domestic partner bill". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Retrieved May 23, 2013. 
  14. ^ Ryan, Cy (May 30, 2009). "Senate overrides governor’s veto of domestic partners bill". Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved May 23, 2013. 
  15. ^ a b Friess, Steve (June 1, 2009). "Nevada Partnership Bill Now Law". New York Times. Retrieved 23 May 2013. 
  16. ^ "Domestic partnership certificates issued in Nevada". USA Today. October 1, 2009. Retrieved May 23, 2013. 
  17. ^ "Senate Bill No. 283" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-12-02. 
  18. ^ a b c "Domestic Partnerships in Nevada, April 5, 2012". LGBT Topics. ACLU of Nevada. Retrieved May 23, 2013. 
  19. ^ United States v. Windsor (US 2013)
  20. ^ "Nevada Marriage Age Requirements Laws". Retrieved 2013-12-02. 
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.