"Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state,"reads Nevada's Constitution, Article 1, Section 21.
Voters spoke strongly in 2000 (70 percent) and 2002 (67 percent) to approve inserting that sentence into the state's constitution.
At the time, we didn't think it was necessary. Nevada Revised Statute 122.020 already said: "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."
Today, however, we're not so sure we would have the same advice - thanks to the collective act of civil disobedience being carried out in San Francisco in defiance of that state's laws.
In 2000, Californians also voted by 61 percent to define marriage as legal only between a man and woman. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and other elected officials have decided to ignore the state law - in fact, have encouraged more than 3,300 gay couples to be married in the past two weeks.
Gay marriage is an emotional topic, putting in conflict some of the most fundamental beliefs to be found in this country, a confrontation between moral behavior and individual rights.
Yet we believe most Nevadans and Californians - we're not sure we can speak for every state - have found a personal philosophy which reconciles the conflict for themselves.
They are tolerant of gay people, yet are unwilling to sanction couples as legally married. Few people raise an eyebrow when gay marriages are performed in Las Vegas wedding chapels, but they're angered by ceremonies at San Francisco City Hall.
In response to the San Francisco marriages and a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling earlier this month pre-empting a same-sex marriage ban there, President Bush has called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
On that point, we'll stick to our reasoning that an amendment isn't needed, because federal law already defines marriage as between a man and woman. The U.S. Constitution also has no provision guaranteeing marriage as a civil right, nor can gays argue they fall under some class of citizens that is being discriminated against.
If voters of a state want to change their own definition of marriage, that's where the issue should be debated and decided. Once the decision is made, as it has in Nevada, California and other states, it should be changed only by the will of the people - not by fiat from the chair of some mayor or judge.
