Question 2, which was placed on the ballot through the petition process by the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, would place the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman into the state constitution. Supporters say the current state law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman is inadequate to fend off a court challenge if gay unions are legalized in other states. Nevada could be forced to recognize such unions here without the constitutional protection. Supporters of Question 2 say such a mandate could affect a variety of issues of concern, including what is taught in the public schools about homosexuality. It is unclear what effect a legalized gay union would have on employee benefits, such as whether Nevada companies and governments would have to extend health insurance to partners in same-sex unions.
Opponents say the proposal is unnecessary and divisive.
A law defining marriage as being between a man and woman is already on the books. Gay rights groups say they would like to receive the same rights that married couples have, including the ability to made medical decisions on behalf of a partner. The proposal, which has strong support in polls, would have to pass a second time in 2002 before it could take effect. Richard Ziser, chairman of the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, said a recent poll by the group put support for Question 2 at around 65 percent. Our main objective now is to make sure voters are not confused by the arguments put out by the opponents.