I’m always amused when the “Arguments Against Passage” section makes a better argument for a ballot question than the actual argument for the ballot question.

Question 1 seeks to amend the Nevada Constitution to guarantee equal rights regardless “of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry, or national origin.” Most of these guarantees are already in place in some form or another elsewhere, either at the federal level or in state statute somewhere. For example, NRS 613.330 was amended in 2011 to prohibit discriminatory employment practices based upon the gender identity or expression of a person.

According to the “Arguments Against Passage” section on Question 1, however, if there are new constitutional protections to classifications such as sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, it will be impossible to “protect the religious liberties of individuals who hold traditional views on marriage and gender and want to live according to those values.” This is a curious argument, as many Nevadans have religious beliefs which oppose the consumption of alcohol or cannabis — and yet, despite Nevada’s famously convenient access to both, many religious Nevadans simply don’t buy those products, thus exercising their religious freedom without restricting the freedom of others to do otherwise. Why can’t these same people simply marry each other and live according to their traditional gender roles while those who choose to live otherwise live in peace and legal equality?

Being religious does not — or, at least, should not — grant one the right to use the power of the state (or any of its cities, counties, or other political subdivisions) to treat others unequally according to whatever precepts are shared amongst your brethren. You can personally treat others unequally if that’s your wish — doing so is rude but you always have the right to be a jerk. If you’re doing so while working for or serving as an agent of the government, however, the government exists to serve everyone, not just those you’re personally comfortable working with. If you have a problem with that, go work for someone else — preferably somewhere else.

I’m going to vote in favor of Question 1 for three reasons.

On a technical basis, rights are properly protected in constitutions because they are considerably more difficult to amend than statutes. Article 1 of our state constitution enumerates the inalienable rights all Nevadans enjoy by virtue of living within our state’s borders. These rights even include rights which are also protected under the U.S. Constitution — Sections 4, 9 and 10, for example, protect freedom of religion, speech and assembly, which are also protected under the First Amendment. Leaving the equal protection of Nevadans under the law scattered around various federal and state statutes is both inefficient and prone to error — federal and state statutes, after all, get amended, which means the legal equality of Nevadans could be amended out from underneath them. 

On a historical basis, the reason Question 1 inventories classes such as race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry or national origin is because Nevada (and our nation more generally) has, in fact, denied equality of the law to each of those groups in the past. Upon statehood, for example, Nevada explicitly only granted white men the ability to vote (the word “white” wasn’t removed from Article 2, Section 1 until 1880; women’s suffrage didn’t come to Nevada until 1914). It’s wise to put into writing that our state will stop doing that.

Finally, it’s a little disingenuous for Nevada, which has a historically libertine reputation, to legally treat those who don’t hold traditional views on gender or marriage differently from those who do. Nearly a century ago, Reno served as a sanctuary from those who needed to escape the confines of the traditional view that a marriage is only divisible by death — and made a pretty penny doing so. Nevada is frankly at its best when it serves as a sanctuary for those who don’t fit into traditional society — as a place where people are people regardless of how they look, how they dress, or who they love. 

David Colborne ran for office twice and served on the executive committees for his state and county Libertarian Party chapters. He is now an IT manager, a registered nonpartisan voter, the father of two sons, and a weekly opinion columnist for The Nevada Independent. You can follow him on Twitter @DavidColborne or email him at [email protected].