Measure 2 is a disgrace to Nevada
Nevadans have a chance on Nov. 5 to make it known to the rest of the country that their state is one of tolerance.
A vote against Question 2 will do just that. A vote for the measure will say just the opposite.
Question 2 would change the Constitution to say, “Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.” Nevadans approved the measure by 70 percent in 2000. Now it is time to undo that anti-homosexual sentiment before it becomes the law of the land.
Obviously two years ago the majority of voters believed gays should not have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Perhaps world events have shown us that we need to be more tolerant of one another, more understanding, more accepting.
A vote against the measure does not have to mean you agree with homosexuality. What is means is that you agree people should be treated equally. Denying equal rights is equivalent to a hate crime.
Webster’s New World Dictionary’s definition of marriage mentions nothing about gender. One definition is “any close or intimate union.” Conventional thinking would agree with this as well as expand it to mean two people who love and respect each other, and who want to spend the rest of their lives together.
The point is that it is two people. Not just whites, not just blacks, not just heterosexuals. It is two people being committed to a monogamous relationship.
Gay marriages will not change anyone else’s rights to marriage.
Perhaps people who are so anti-gay marriage should do some research on the history of marriage. “One of the earliest and most frequent customs associated with the entrance into marriage was the capture of the woman by her intended husband,” according to the “Catholic Encyclopedia: History of Marriage.” Capture then gave way to purchasing wives, according to the same doctrine on marriage history.
Unfortunately the headlines tell us there are still arranged marriages and mail order brides. Marriage has evolved through the years to where at least in the United States the individuals form a union of their own free will.
The institution of marriage has an ugly past, it does not have to have an ugly future.
Why anyone would be against two people making a commitment to each other, whether it be before God or in a civil ceremony, is completely beyond comprehension.
Measure 2 must be defeated.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Readers around the Lake Tahoe Basin and beyond make the Tahoe Tribune's work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User
Amidst what could be the hottest summer on record and potentially the most severe drought of our lifetime, climate change no longer appears to be some distant existential threat. In this context, it seems appropriate…