by peter5427

Good grief. Marriage is rooted in biological necessities, not psychological theories of “gender identity.” They never explain why the very WORD is so important to them, instead of fixing the legal consequences either way. What if “marriage” did not automatically convey all kinds of “privileges” and instead everyone had to show proof of legal authority to whatever “marriage” confers upon the parties? What if there were no “marriage penalty” in the tax code? I am married but I still can’t make investment decisions about my wife’s IRA. Just as an example or two. On the other hand no one challenged me when I was visiting my mother in the hospital, and when I had my sister-in-law admitted for surgery, they all just assumed I was her husband and I had free run of the place all the time she was there. The only time I had to prove who I was, was when my wife was having our two babies, as a precaution against the kidnapping of newborns. If there is a problem, THIS bill is NOT the fix.

by simi4relo

I do not care what people do in their private lives, or with whom they choose to make a union. That is their right and privilege. But don’t call it “marriage,” unless it is clearly the union of one man and one woman, which has been the definition of marriage since the beginning of recorded time, in the Holy Bible, in the US Constitution and in the Nevada Constitution. If this bill offered the same benefits to a domestic partner in a domestic union as exist in a marriage (right of survivorship, common laws, next-of-kin notification, visitation, end-of-life decisions, etc.), I would embrace and endorse this bill. Instead, it dilutes the time-tested, traditional definition of marriage, diminishes the importance of holy matrimony in the eyes of God and feels like what I call “Vegetarians for Beef”… people who want to change the very definition and rules to suit their personal agenda. NO on AJR2. (and NO on AB229.)

by janine

This Constitutional Amendment will replace marriage between a man and a woman which was passed by 70% of the people in two consecutive elections. It will have to pass the Legislature this session and in 2019 and then go on the ballot. It will mean that schools will teach LGBTQ marriage (and everything that goes with it) on an equal basis with God ordained marriage between a man and a woman. It will mean that people in business will be forced by law to participate in gender marriage or go out of business. It will mean that churches and clergy will be in jeopardy of losing their religious liberty if they refuse to marry LGBTQ couples.  Day by Day…bill by bill…we are losing our Religious Liberties.

When I asked the question during the Assembly hearing: which Constitutional Amendment will take precedence, AJR2 the gender marriage Constitutional Amendment or the Nevada Constitutional Declaration of Rights Art. 1 Section 4 protecting Religious liberty…the Legislative Counsel Bureau (attorney for Legislature) said in Committee that the newest Constitutional Amendment, gender marriage, would take precedent over religious Liberty.  Goodbye religious liberty!!!