Same-sex marriage in Nevada#Domestic partnership

The LGBT community in Nevada enjoyed a series of political victories in the 1990s, including the repeal of a law that criminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations and the passage of a law banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In 1998, the Mayor of Las Vegas, Jan Jones Blackhurst, issued a proclamation declaring February 12 as the National Freedom to Marry Day, a move considered "unprecedented" by local activists. Around the time the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed in 1996, religious and conservative groups began campaigning to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Nevada. A local version of the National Coalition for the Protection of Marriage was founded in 1999. The group succeeded in filing a petition to amend the Constitution of Nevada prohibiting same-sex marriages and banning the state from recognizing same-sex marriages validly performed elsewhere. Opponents of same-sex marriage gained momentum in Nevada by the successful campaign in California to pass Proposition 22.{{cite web|url=https://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/las-vegas/articles/question-2|title=Gay History in Nevada and Las Vegas, 1969-2009, by Dennis McBride, Crystal Van Dee, and Paul Ershler|work=Out History|date=2009|first=Dennis|last=McBride}}

"Caught by surprise and unprepared", LGBT activists were severely underfunded compared to their opponents, who ran media campaigns and raised billboards. Most of the funding to opponents of same-sex marriage came from Mormons in Nevada. The amendment, as Question 2, was placed on the ballot in November 2000, and passed with 69% of the vote. It required approval a second time in 2002, when it passed with 67% of the vote. Efforts to recognize same-sex unions as reciprocal beneficiary relationships, similar to Hawaii's, were heavily opposed by the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, and a bill to this effect was defeated in 2001. A month after Question 2 was approved by Nevada voters, the government of the Republic of Molossia, an unrecognized micronation near Dayton, issued a proclamation regarding same-sex marriage effective from December 29,{{efn|The decree is known as Proclamation 021229b ({{langx|eo|Proklamo 021229b}}; {{langx|es|Proclamación 021229b}}).}} that "Discrimination against any individual in any manner on the grounds of sexual orientation is absolutely prohibited. [...] This prohibition includes but is not limited to: discrimination as regards marriage (Partnering), inheritance, jobs, justice and the redress of wrongs, education, and spiritual sustenance. [...] Furthermore, no distinction will be made between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships. Both will be treated equally by the Government of the Republic of Molossia, its agencies, any private organization or agency (to include religious institutions), and any and all private citizens."{{cite web|url=http://www.molossia.org/statutes.html|title=Government Proclamations|quote=Proclamation 021229b: Equal Opportunity|accessdate=October 11, 2022|website=Official Website of the Republic of Molossia|archive-date=February 18, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220218070534/http://www.molossia.org/statutes.html}}{{cite web|url=https://travelnevada.com/weird-nevada/republic-of-molossia/|title=Republic of Molossia|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220125053735/https://travelnevada.com/weird-nevada/republic-of-molossia/|archive-date=January 25, 2022|work=Travel Nevada|accessdate=October 11, 2022|quote=Same-sex marriage has been legal within this independent nation since 2002.}}

A domestic partnership bill successfully passed the Nevada Legislature in 2009, granting same-sex couples various state-level rights, benefits and obligations relating to inheritance, hospital visitation, insurance, property, and adoption. In 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the amendment banning same-sex marriage violated the U.S. Constitution. Acting on order from the Ninth Circuit, a federal district court judge issued an injunction against enforcement of Nevada's same-sex marriage ban on October 9, 2014, legalizing same-sex marriage in Nevada, a few months before it was legalized nationwide in the United States. The ban was removed from the Nevada Constitution by voters in 2020.

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 Senator David Parks of Las Vegas in 2009. 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, and the Nevada Assembly passed the legislation 26–14 on May 15. On May 25, 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."{{cite news|last=Vogel |first=Ed|title=Gibbons vetoes domestic partner bill |url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada-legislature/gibbons-vetoes-domestic-partner-bill|access-date=May 23, 2013 |newspaper=Las Vegas Review-Journal|date=May 25, 2009}} On May 30, the Senate overrode Gibbons' veto on a 14–7 vote,{{cite news|last=Ryan|first=Cy|title=Senate overrides governor's veto of domestic partners bill |url=http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/may/30/senate-overrides-governors-veto-domestic-partners-/|access-date=May 23, 2013|newspaper=Las Vegas Sun|date=May 30, 2009}}{{Cite news |last= |first= |date=2009-05-31 |title=Nevada Senate Overrides Veto on Domestic Partners Measure |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/us/31nevada.html |access-date=2025-05-10 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}} and the Assembly overrode the veto the next day on a 28–14 vote,{{cite news|last=Friess|first=Steve|title=Nevada Partnership Bill Now Law|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us/01nevada.html|access-date=May 23, 2013|newspaper=New York Times|date=June 1, 2009}}{{Cite web |title=Nevada legalizing domestic partnerships - CNN.com |url=http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/31/nevada.domestic.partnerships/index.html?iref=nextin |access-date=2025-05-10 |website=www.cnn.com}} obtaining the two-thirds vote needed to override the veto. The law took effect on October 1, 2009.{{cite news|title=Domestic partnership certificates issued in Nevada |url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-10-01-nevada_N.htm|access-date=May 23, 2013|newspaper=USA Today |date=October 1, 2009}} It allows opposite-sex couples to establish domestic partnerships as well.{{cite web|url=http://leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Bills/SB/SB283_EN.pdf |title=Senate Bill No. 283 |access-date=December 2, 2013}}

The Nevada Domestic Partnership Act (DPA) provides many of the state-level rights, responsibilities, obligations, entitlements and benefits of marriage under the name "domestic partnership". They differ from marriage 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 violated the protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as well as the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment.United States v. Windsor (US 2013) Because of that ruling, federal government benefits were extended to same-sex couples and their children in states where same-sex marriage is legal. The DPA 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.{{cite web|title=Domestic Partnerships in Nevada, April 5, 2012|url=http://www.aclunv.org/category/issue/lgbt/domestic-partnership-guide|work=LGBT Topics|date=March 5, 2010 |publisher=ACLU of Nevada|access-date=May 23, 2013}} 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.{{cite web|url=http://statelaws.findlaw.com/nevada-law/nevada-marriage-age-requirements-laws.html |title=Nevada Marriage Age Requirements Laws |publisher=Law.findlaw.com |access-date=June 23, 2017}}

Some rights provided by a Nevada domestic partnership are:

• Hospital visitation, health care decision-making, and information-access rights
• Inheritance rights, including the right to administer the estate of an intestate domestic partner, and business succession rights
• Rights regarding cemetery plots, disposition of remains, anatomical donations, and ordering of autopsies
• A surviving domestic partner may bring a wrongful death action based on the death of the other partner
• Community property, domestic violence and testimonial privileges rules apply
• Dissolution laws apply (with only a few exceptions)
• Domestic partners may sue on behalf of the community
• Certain property transfers between partners are not taxed
• State veterans' benefits apply
• Appointed and elected officials' domestic partners are subject to the same laws and regulations that apply to officials' spouses
• Employment benefits, including sick leave to care for a domestic partner; wages and benefits when a domestic partner is injured, and to unpaid wages upon the death of a domestic partner; unemployment and disability insurance benefits; workers' compensation coverage
• Insurance rights, including rights under group policies, policy rights after the death of a domestic partner, conversion rights and continuing coverage rights
• Rights related to adoption, child custody and child support

Between 1975 and 2017, Nevada's marriage statute (NRS § 122.020) stated that "a male and a female person...may be joined in marriage".{{cite web|url=https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-122.html#NRS122Sec020|title=NRS: CHAPTER 122 - MARRIAGE|date=January 1, 2017|work=leg.state.nv.us|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170528101432/https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-122.html|archive-date=May 28, 2017}}[https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/58th/Stats197508.html#Stats197508page1817 1975 Statutes of Nevada, Page 1817]

On February 21, 2017, a bill to make the marriage statute gender-neutral was introduced to the Nevada Assembly by Representative Ellen Spiegel of Henderson. The legislation passed the Assembly on April 17 in a 28–10 vote, and passed the Senate on May 17 in a 20–1 vote.[http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/79th2017/Reports/history.cfm?DocumentType=1&BillNo=229 Legislative history of AB229] It was signed into law by Governor Brian Sandoval on May 26 and took effect on July 1, 2017.{{cite web|url=http://mynews4.com/news/local/sandoval-signs-bill-codifying-right-to-same-sex-marriage-in-nevada|title=Sandoval signs bill codifying right to same-sex marriage in Nevada|date=May 26, 2017|work=NBC My News 4|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170528101819/http://mynews4.com/news/local/sandoval-signs-bill-codifying-right-to-same-sex-marriage-in-nevada|archive-date=May 28, 2017}} Nevada statutes now read:[https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-122.html Nevada Revised Statutes: Chapter 122 - Marriage]

{{blockquote|Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2 and NRS 122.025, two persons, regardless of gender, who are at least 18 years of age, not nearer of kin than second cousins or cousins of the half blood, and not having a spouse living, may be joined in marriage. [NRS § 122.020]}}

[[File:2020 Nevada Question 2 results map by county.svg|thumb|right|300px|Results of Question 2 (2020) by county

{{col-begin}}

{{col-2}}

Yes

{{legend|#7D9CBB|60–70% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}

{{legend|#B6C8D9|50–60% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}

{{col-2}}

No

{{legend|#BCBC83|60–70% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}

{{legend|#DEDEBD|50–60% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}

{{col-end}}

]]

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.{{efn|Amendments to the Constitution of Nevada must be approved twice by voters if initiated by the people, or twice by the Legislature and once by voters if initiated by the Legislature.}} Richard Ziser, a real estate investor, headed the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, which led the successful campaign that amended the State Constitution to define marriage as a union between "one man and one woman."{{cite news |last1=Neff |first1=Erin |title=Ziser: Massachusetts shows gay marriage ban needed |publisher=Las Vegas Review - Journal |date=February 10, 2004|id={{ProQuest|260172871}} }}{{cite news |last1=Robertson |first1=Tatsha |last2=Freiss |first2=Steve |title=GAY MARRIAGE DECISION SPURS ACTION ACROSS US |publisher=Boston Globe |date=November 23, 2003|id={{ProQuest|404841726}} }}

In 2013, the Nevada Legislature began work on legislation to repeal the constitutional ban and substitute in its place a gender-neutral definition of marriage.{{cite news |url=http://www.rgj.com/viewart/20130411/NEWS11/304110057/|title=Nev. senate panel amends, passes gay marriage bill|publisher=Reno Gazette-Journal|date=April 11, 2013}} The Senate approved such legislation on April 22 on a 12–9 vote,{{cite news|last=Chereb|first=Sandra|title=Gay marriage resolution advances in Nevada|url=http://www.rgj.com/viewart/20130422/NEWS11/130422033/Gay-marriage-resolution-advances-Nevada |access-date=April 23, 2013|newspaper=Reno Gazette-Journal|date=April 22, 2013}} and the Nevada Assembly passed the resolution on May 23 by a 27–14 vote.{{cite news|url=http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/may/23/nevada-assembly-backs-resolution-end-ban-gay-marri/|title=Nevada Assembly backs resolution to end ban on gay marriage|date=May 23, 2013|publisher=Las Vegas Sun}} It would have required approval by the next legislative session in 2015 and by voters in the 2016 election to take effect.{{cite news |last=Hagar |first=Ray|title=Long road ahead for marriage equality in Nevada |url=http://www.rgj.com/article/20130428/NEWS11/304280049/Long-road-ahead-marriage-equality-Nevada|access-date=May 24, 2013 |newspaper=Reno Gazette-Journal|date=April 28, 2013}} However, as Republicans took control of the Senate following the 2014 elections, no second vote was held.

On February 1, 2017, after the Democratic Party took control of the Senate following the 2016 elections, identical legislation (known as AJR2) was introduced to repeal the now-defunct ban on same-sex marriage in the Constitution. The resolution passed the Assembly on March 9, 2017, in a 27–14 vote. The Senate amended it to include a religious exemption, after which it passed the bill on May 1 in a 19–2 vote,{{cite web|url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/columns/steve-sebelius/nevada-assembly-resolution-brings-gay-marriage-debate-back |title=Nevada Assembly resolution brings gay marriage debate back |publisher=Las Vegas Review-Journal |date=March 11, 2017}}[https://legiscan.com/NV/bill/AJR2/2017 NV AJR2 {{!}} 2017 {{!}} 79th Legislature]{{cite news|url=http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/01/nevada-clergy-could-refuse/308488001/|title=Nevada senators move gay marriage update closer to ballot|date=May 1, 2017|publisher=Reno Gazette Journal}} and the Assembly approved the Senate's amendment on May 2.[http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/79th2017/Reports/history.cfm?ID=216 Legislative history of AJR2] The resolution returned to the Nevada Legislature in February 2019.{{cite web|url=https://nevadacapitalnews.org/2019/03/13/joint-resolution-is-second-step-in-effort-to-redefine-marriage-in-the-nevada-state-constitution/|title=Joint Resolution is second step in effort to redefine marriage in the Nevada State Constitution|work=Nevada Capital News|date=March 13, 2019}} It was approved by the Assembly on March 29, 2019, in a 38–2 vote and by the Senate on May 23 in a 19–2 vote.{{cite web|url=https://www.nnbusinessview.com/news/nevada-assembly-oks-marriage-equality-amendment/|title=Nevada Assembly OKs marriage equality amendment|publisher=Northern Nevada Business View|date=April 1, 2019}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.nevadacurrent.com/blog/ballot-question-on-state-constitutions-same-sex-marriage-ban-coming-in-2020/|title=Ballot question on state constitution's same-sex marriage ban coming in 2020|last=Lyle|first=Michael|website=Nevada Current|language=en-US|access-date=May 24, 2019}}{{Cite web|url=https://legiscan.com/NV/bill/AJR2A/2019|title=Nevada AJR2A {{!}} 2019 {{!}} 80th Legislature|website=LegiScan|language=en|access-date=May 24, 2019}} The initiative was then placed on the November 2020 ballot for approval by voters.{{cite news|date=February 21, 2017|title=Same-sex marriage bill would alter Nevada Constitution language|publisher=Las Vegas Review-Journal|url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/same-sex-marriage-bill-would-alter-nevada-constitution-language}} As Question 2,{{efn|Voters were asked: "Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to: (1) remove an existing provision that only a marriage between a male person and a female person may be recognized and given effect in Nevada; (2) require that the State of Nevada and its political subdivisions must recognize marriages of and issue marriage licenses to couples regardless of gender, and that all legally valid marriages must be treated equally under the law; and (3) provide that religious organizations and members of the clergy have the right to refuse to perform a marriage, and that no person has the right to make any claim against a religious organization or member of the clergy for refusing to perform a marriage?"}} it was approved with 62% of the vote.[https://silverstateelection.nv.gov/ballot-questions/ Silver State Election Results]{{Cite news|last=Browning|first=Bil|date=November 4, 2020|title=Nevada voters turn same-sex marriage ban into legal protections for gay couples|url=https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2020/11/nevada-voters-turn-sex-marriage-ban-legal-protections-gay-couples/|access-date=November 6, 2020|website=LGBTQ Nation}}{{Cite web|title=Nevada Question 2, Marriage Regardless of Gender Amendment (2020)|url=https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Question_2,_Marriage_Regardless_of_Gender_Amendment_(2020)|access-date=November 6, 2020|website=Ballotpedia|language=en}} The constitutional amendment went into force on November 24, 2020. Section 21 of Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution now reads:

{{blockquote|1. The State of Nevada and its political subdivisions shall recognize marriages and issue marriage licenses to couples regardless of gender.
2. Religious organizations and members of the clergy have the right to refuse to solemnize a marriage, and no person has the right to make any claim against a religious organization or member of the clergy for such a refusal.
3. All legally valid marriages must be treated equally under the law.}}

{{Main|Sevcik v. Sandoval}}

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 raised equal protection claims but did not assert a fundamental right to marry.MetroWeekly: [http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/04/lambda-legal-files-federal-lawsuit-seeking-marriag.html Chris Geidner, "Lambda Legal Files Federal Lawsuit Seeking Marriage Equality in Nevada," April 10, 2012] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121022103151/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/04/lambda-legal-files-federal-lawsuit-seeking-marriag.html |date=October 22, 2012 }}, accessed June 4, 2012 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".{{cite news|last=Geidner|first=Chris|title=Federal Judge Rules Nevada Can Ban Same-Sex Couples From Marriage|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-judge-rules-the-nevada-can-ban-same-sex-co|access-date=November 30, 2012|newspaper=BuzzFeed Politics|date=November 29, 2012}} The decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.{{cite news|url=http://equalityontrial.com/2013/01/07/ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals-allows-hawaii-and-nevada-marriage-cases-to-be-heard-on-a-parallel-track/|title=Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allows Hawaii and Nevada marriage cases to be heard on a parallel track|date=January 7, 2013|publisher=Equality on Trial}}

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".{{cite news|title=Gay Marriage Ban Support Slips in Nevada |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/us/gay-marriage-ban-support-slips-in-nevada.html|access-date=February 10, 2014 |work=The Associated Press|publisher=New York Times|date=February 10, 2014}} On October 7, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the federal district court 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.{{cite news|url=https://online.wsj.com/articles/appeals-court-strikes-down-same-sex-marriage-bans-in-idaho-nevada-1412713181 |title=Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Gay-Marriage Bans in Idaho, Nevadal|publisher=Wall Street Journal|date=October 7, 2014}}{{cite news|title=Ninth Circuit Opinion|url=http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/10/07/12-17668%20opinion.pdf |date=October 7, 2014}} The court held that Nevada's ban on same-sex marriage constituted a violation of same-sex couples' Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.{{cite web |title=Appellate Court Strikes Down Gay-Marriage Bans In Idaho, Nevada|url=https://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/10/07/354373981/appellate-court-strikes-down-gay-marriage-bans-in-idaho-nevada|access-date=October 7, 2014 |work=NPR.org |date=October 7, 2014}} The court also applied heightened scrutiny in concluding that Nevada's ban constituted 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.{{cite news|title=Federal judge signs injunction allowing gay marriage in Nevada |url=http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/10/09/nevada-group-withdraws-request-for-stay-of-gay-marriage-ban/16975791/ |access-date=October 10, 2014|publisher=Reno Gazette-Journal|date=October 9, 2014}}

Representative Lucy Flores welcomed the court ruling, saying, "Allowing people to marry who they love is the right thing to do." Senator Michael Roberson said that "[t]he state of Nevada should not discriminate against anyone", while Senator Justin Jones said, "This decision wasn't about being a Democrat or a Republican, but about giving those who love one another, regardless of gender, the rights we all deserve." Secretary of State Ross Miller welcomed the court ruling.{{cite web|url=https://lasvegassun.com/news/2014/oct/08/where-candidates-major-nevada-races-stand-gay-marr/|title=Where candidates in major Nevada races stand on gay marriage ruling|website=Las Vegas Sun|date=October 8, 2014|last=Roerink|first=Kyle}} The first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license were Kristy Best and Wednesday Smith at around 3 p.m. on Thursday, October 9 in Carson City. Theo Small and Antioco Carillo were the first couple to be issued a license in Las Vegas shortly after 5 p.m. on October 9, followed a few minutes later by State Senator Kelvin Atkinson and his partner Sherwood Howard.{{cite web|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/nevada-gay-marriage-111758?_amp=true|title=First gay couple weds in Las Vegas|work=Politico|date=October 9, 2014}}

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled unanimously in LaFrance v. Cline on December 23, 2020, that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges obliges the state to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions before 2014. Mary Elizabeth LaFrance and Gail Cline had a civil union ceremony in Vermont in 2000 and legally wed in Canada in 2003, but their marriage was not recognized in Nevada at the time. In 2014, they divorced and filed for judicial dissolution. The trial court had to decide what property and assets were part of the "community" for purposes of division of assets. District Court Judge Mathew Harter concluded that pursuant to Obergefell he should find that their "community" came into effect when the couple entered into their civil union in 2000, and divided property accordingly. LaFrance appealed, contending that their marital community, for purposes of Nevada law, did not come into effect until the Sevcik decision in 2014. The Nevada Supreme Court decided that a Vermont civil union could be recognized for these purposes solely if the couple had registered it as a domestic partnership, which LaFrance and Cline did not do. The court concluded that their marital community was formed in 2003 in Canada. Even though it was not recognized in Nevada at the time, the court found that it must be retroactively recognized pursuant to Obergefell.{{cite web|url=https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/01/nevada-retroactively-recognizes-sex-marriages-lesbian-divorce-case/|title=Nevada retroactively recognizes same-sex marriages in lesbian divorce case|work=LGBTQ Nation|date=January 7, 2021|last=Bollinger|first=Alex}}{{cite web|url=https://www.gaycitynews.com/nevada-supreme-court-retroactively-recognizes-pre-obergefell-marriages/|title=Nevada Supreme Court Retroactively Recognizes Pre-Obergefell Marriages|work=GayCityNews.com|date=January 6, 2021|last=Leonard|first=Arthur}}{{cite web|url=https://www.artleonardobservations.com/nevada-supreme-court-holds-obergefell-requires-retroactive-recognition-of-out-of-state-same-sex-marriages-but-not-civil-unions-for-community-property-purposes/|title=Nevada Supreme Court Holds Obergefell Requires Retroactive Recognition of Out-of-State Same-Sex Marriages (but Not Civil Unions) for Community Property Purposes|work=Art Leonard Observations|date=December 31, 2020}}

Clark County issued its 10,000th same-sex marriage license on January 20, 2017.[https://lasvegassun.com/news/2017/jan/20/10000th-same-sex-marriage-license-issued-in-clark/ 10,000th same-sex marriage license issued in Clark County] The number of same-sex marriages performed in Clark County was 957 in 2014, followed by 4,055 in 2015, 4,778 in 2016, 4,418 in 2017, 4,269 in 2018, 4,233 in 2019, 3,469 in 2020, and 4,563 in 2021. Often referred to as the "Marriage Capital of the World", Las Vegas (and adjacent communities in Clark County) has one of the highest marriage rates in the U.S., attracting many couples from overseas and other states. In 2019, 420 same-sex spouses were from Mexico, 350 from England, 326 from China, 213 from the Philippines, 147 from Canada, 143 from Germany, 115 from France, 90 from Australia and 87 from Brazil, as well as several dozen from Israel, Spain, Cuba, Vietnam, Italy, Venezuela, Scotland, El Salvador and Thailand.{{cite web|url=https://www.clarkcountynv.gov/government/elected_officials/county_clerk/marriage_statistics.php|title=Marriage Statistics|website=clarkcountynv.gov}}

The 2020 U.S. census showed that there were 8,518 married same-sex couple households (4,431 male couples and 4,087 female couples) and 5,986 unmarried same-sex couple households in Nevada.{{cite web|url=https://data.census.gov/table?q=PCT15&d=DEC+Demographic+and+Housing+Characteristics|title=PCT1405 Couple Households, By Type|access-date=11 December 2023|work=United States Census Bureau|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230609204706/https://data.census.gov/table?q=PCT15&d=DEC+Demographic+and+Housing+Characteristics|archive-date=9 June 2023}}

The Law and Order Code of the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe states that marriage is governed by state law rather than tribal law. As such, same-sex marriage is legal on its reservation.{{cite web|url=http://www.narf.org/nill/codes/fort_mcdermitt/ch5.pdf|title=Chapter 5. Domestic Relations and Adoptions|work=www.narf.org}} The Law and Order Code of the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe generally refers to married spouses as "husband and wife" but states that marriages entered into outside the tribe's jurisdiction are valid if they are valid in the jurisdiction where they were entered into. Similar language is found in the codes of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California,{{efn|The Law and Order Code of the Washoe Tribe generally refers to married spouses as "husband and wife" but does not explicitly ban same-sex marriage. The Code requires the married couple, known in Washo as {{lang|was|degumLá:yaʔ}} ({{IPA|was|degumˈl̥aːjaʔ|pron}}),{{cite web|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160325155552/https://washo.uchicago.edu/dictionary/results.php?AttestationID=5466&SearchBy=GlossIndex&SearchKey=c|url=https://washo.uchicago.edu/dictionary/results.php?AttestationID=5466&SearchBy=GlossIndex&SearchKey=c|url-status=dead|archive-date=25 March 2016|work=The Washo Project|access-date=6 August 2024|title=Washoe Dictionary}} to "consent to the establishment of the relationship of husband and wife between themselves".{{cite web|url=https://washoetribe.us/documents/15/Title_9_Domestic_Relations-5-1-19.pdf|title=Law and Order Code of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, Title 9: Domestic Relations|work=Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California|accessdate=January 6, 2023}}}} and the Yomba Shoshone Tribe.{{cite web|url=https://narf.org/nill/codes/yombacode/yomba8domrel.html|title=Title Eight - Domestic Relations of the Yomba Shoshone Tribe Law and Order Code|work=www.narf.org}} The laws of the Ely Shoshone Tribe do not allow for the solemnization of same-sex marriages. Its Tribal Code states that "a male and a female person, at least 18 years of age, not nearer of kin than second cousins or cousins of the half blood, and not having a husband or wife living, may be joined in marriage."{{cite web|url=https://narf.org/nill/codes/ely_shoshone/ch122.pdf|title=Ely Shoshone Tribal Code, Chapter 122: Marriage|work=Ely Shoshone Tribe|accessdate=August 18, 2022}}

While there are no records of same-sex marriages as understood from a Western perspective being performed in Native American cultures, there is evidence for identities and behaviours that may be placed on the LGBT spectrum. Many of these cultures recognized two-spirit individuals who were born male but wore women's clothing and performed everyday household work and artistic handiwork which were regarded as belonging to the feminine sphere. Marriages between two-spirit people and men or women have been historically performed among these tribes. In Shoshone culture, two-spirit individuals are known as {{lang|shh|ta̲i̲nna waʼippe}} ({{IPA|shh|ˈten.na ˈwaʔip.pɨ|pron}}). They performed women's activities but did not always wear women's clothing. Some of them married men, others married women, while others remained unmarried.{{cite book|title=Men as women, women as men: changing gender in Native American cultures|url=https://archive.org/details/menaswomenwomena0000lang|url-access=registration|author=Sabine Lang|publisher=University of Texas Press |year=1998 |isbn=0-292-74701-2}} It was considered inappropriate, however, for two {{lang|shh|ta̲i̲nna waʼippe}} to form a relationship.{{cite book|title=Two-spirit People: Native American Gender Identity, Sexuality, and Spiritually|first1=Sue-Ellen|last1=Jacobs|last2=Thomas|first2=Wesley|first3=Sabine|last3=Lang|publisher=University of Illinois Press|date=1997|isbn=0252066456}} The Northern Paiute people refer to two-spirit people who crossed out of the masculine gender as {{lang|pao|tudayapi}} ({{IPA|pao|tɨˈɾajapai|pron}}), and they were likewise free to marry either men or women. The two-spirit status thus allowed for marriages between two biological males to be performed in these tribes.

{{Portal|United States|LGBTQ}}

• LGBT rights in Nevada
• Same-sex marriage in the United States

{{Notelist}}

{{Reflist|30em}}

• {{cite web|url=http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/10/07/12-17668%20opinion.pdf|title=Sevcik v. Sandoval|work= Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals|date=October 7, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141012084748/http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/10/07/12-17668%20opinion.pdf|archive-date=October 12, 2014}}

{{Same-sex unions in the United States}}

Category:Nevada law

Category:LGBTQ in Nevada

Nevada

Category:2014 in LGBTQ history

Category:2014 in Nevada

Category:Marriage in Nevada