by peter5427

So now marriage — an institution necessitated by the inevitable biological differences between a man and a woman and the inevitable consequences of those differences in the form of the next generation, and therefore the inevitable necessity of the family as the fundamental building block of society — is reduced to a contract between any two people of any actual or self-perceived sex. Well, THAT’s what THEY call “progress.” I call it the rapid disintegration of the very thing they claim to protect.

Marriage is, has been, and always will be only between a man and a woman. Anything else is just a  contract which people are, have been, and always will be free to agree to among themselves. The purpose on this bill is not to legalize, facilitate or regulate such contracts, but to usurp the word “marriage” and apply it in such a way that it destroys the  concept and therefore the institution itself.

See also AJR2 — NO

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 AB229. (and NO on AJR2.)

by janine

Please don’t allow this any gender marriage to violate my religious liberties.  God ordained marriage between a man and a woman.

This bill changes Nevada State Statutes and says “same sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.” When I asked the question during the hearing on AJR2: which Constitutional Amendment will take precedence AJR2 gender marriage 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. Goodbye religious liberty!!!