Jump to content

Talk:LGBTQ rights in Nevada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References

[edit]

I've redone the refs to show the full linked-item urls in the References section. I notice the third one has become a dead link, and needs to dug up again. Hiroe (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment

[edit]

The age of consent for gays in Nevada is 18 per nrs chapter 201.195 in crimes against nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.250.68.214 (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False Framed Viewpoint

[edit]

I intend to remove nearly the entire opening paragraph as LGBT couples who enter the commitment that equals "marriage" to straight couples have nowhere near equal rights. A recent repeal (April,2013) of a gay marriage ban does not in any way mean LGBT married couples have "most of the same rights" They have none of the same rights.Dirtclustit (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I read on Recognition of same-sex unions in Nevada suggests that the rights provided by a Nevada domestic partnership are extensive. Not identical to marriage, but extensive. That entry says: "The Domestic Partnership Responsibilities Act provides largely the same state-level rights, responsibilities, obligations, entitlements and benefits of marriage under the name domestic partnership." A long list follows. The entry also details some serious differences: "Nevada domestic partnerships differ from marriage in that a couple forming a domestic partnership must share a common residence and be at least 18 years old rather than 16 with the consent of one parent. Public agencies and public employers who provide health insurance for married partners of employees need not provide those same benefits to domestic partners." I'd assume from that that non-public employers are also free to discriminate against those in domestic partnerships in providing health benefits, but it doesn't say that. I'd be surprised if Nevada holds private enterprise to a higher standard that the private sector.
I'd suggest that what needs improvement is the description in the body of this entry under the heading "Recognition of same-sex relationships". That refers to legislation to "grant both opposite-sex and same-sex couples all the responsibilities, obligations, rights, entitlements and benefits of marriage within a type of domestic partnership registry without calling it marriage." If that is overstated -- and it must be since it uses the word all -- then it needs to be properly restated before we work on the opening paragraph, which is supposed to be a summary of what follows.
So first let's improve what we have in the body and then we can work to be sure the opening paragraph -- which is supposed to summarize the body of the entry -- does so. And if I find the time I'll look into what Nevada domestic partnerships do and do not provide. Perhaps Recognition of same-sex unions in Nevada needs some work. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is not one, not even one benefit afforded to same sex committed couples that is granted to hetero couples. The IRS says they pool their money to file taxes, but even that isn't filing jointly as a married couple. Getting into the details shows nothing has been done. Nothing could be better than calling the commitment any name under the sun, the problem isn't the name, the problem lies within unjustly withholding equal rights in the form of too many benefits to list here, which are all explicitly guaranteed to be not only protected but also granted to all citizens of The United States so long as the country exists.Dirtclustit (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a second read, I jumped the gun, if in fact the domestic partnership is accurately described. If the only real difference is health insurance, then I was completely off base. I'll come back in a day or two and see if I can write it more clearly instead of going on rampagesDirtclustit (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LGBT rights in Nevada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBTQ_rights_in_Nevada&oldid=1245601079"