Same sex marriage in Nevada

History

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.

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.

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". The decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In February 2014, the state withdrew its brief defending Nevada's ban on same-sex marriage. Governor Brian Sandoval stated: "It has become clear that this case is no longer defensible in court". 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 Nevada's amendment banning same-sex marriage. The court held that Nevada's ban on same-sex marriage constituted a violation of same-sex couples' Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. The court also applied heightened scrutiny in concluding that Nevada's ban constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. On October 9, Judge James C. Mahan issued the injunction and same-sex couples began obtaining marriage licenses.

Constitutional amendment legalizing same-sex marriage

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. The Senate approved such legislation on April 22 on a 12–9 vote. and the Assembly passed the resolution on May 23 by a 27-14 vote. It would have required approval by the 2015 Legislature and by voters in the 2016 election to take effect. However, as Republicans took control of the Legislature following the 2014 elections, no second vote was held.

On February 1, 2017, after Democrats took control of the Legislature again, a similar bill was introduced, in order to bring the Constitution in line with the fact that same-sex marriage is legal. If approved in 2017 and 2019, it would be placed on the 2020 ballot for approval by voters. The bill passed the Assembly on March 9, in a 27-14 vote. On February 21, a bill to make the statutory marriage laws gender-neutral was introduced in the Assembly.

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. 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."

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

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. 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. 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 fails 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 marriages in that a couple forming a domestic partnership must share a common residence. 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.

Some rights provided by a Nevada domestic partnership are:

Marriage statistics

On January 20, 2017, the Clark County Clerk’s Marriage License Bureau issued its 10,000th same-sex marriage license.