BACKSTORY: QUESTIONING THE QUESTIONS

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "A foolish consistency is a hobgoblin of
little minds." Nevada, a state often notorious for foolishness, is now
displaying the inconsistency of little minds.

At issue are two ballot questions. Question 2 is called the protection of
marriage initiative, and defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Question 9 would allow possession of three ounces of marijuana in your home.

Question 2's supporters contend that same-sex marriage isn't marriage, and
the Nevada Constitution ought to say so. But it already does, so why add a
redundant amendment?

A few conspiracy theorists, including this one, suspect those behind this
question hoped to inspire a right-wing turnout on Election Day. Everyone
who hates homosexuals would cast ballots. And those ballots would support
far-right candidates. Fortunately, or unfortunately, most politicians have
diluted the potential effects by endorsing this silliness.

Some critics say this ballot question is bigotry personified. Of course it
is. Bigotry can be conscious, as it is with those who hate homosexuals just
for being homosexuals. That's nothing new. From the Alien and Sedition Acts
of 1798 to Attorney General John Ashcroft, with racism and McCarthyism in
between, American history is full of cases of people who hate others for
their skin or thought.

But bigotry may be unconscious. Some Question 2 supporters simply think
marriage must be between a man and a woman; for some, understandably, it's
a great leap to think otherwise. Others back it because they feel they
must: They are running for office and know what their opponents will do if
they speak their true feelings (see above, conscious bigotry, to explain
their opponents). Several local homosexual activists generally have gone
along, knowing those who traditionally support their basic civil rights
still do, but can do nothing for that simplest of causes if they are defeated.

Question 9 inspires similarly strong reactions from its supporters and
opponents. Its supporters won far more attention, and public backing, at
first. When public opinion became obvious, those who opposed Question 9
ratcheted up their rhetoric, citing examples of drug addiction and its
effects. Marijuana doesn't always lead to more drug use and far worse
crimes, but it can happen.

Question 9 would allow possession of three ounces of marijuana in your
home--not in a car or on Las Vegas Boulevard, for example, and not if you
are under age 21. Question 9's opponents feel strongly that this will lead
to evil, although they express it poorly, given that they seem too busy
preening for the cameras and showing contempt for voters by trying to
frighten rather than educate and persuade.

Worse, in fretting about the effects, they talk about what might happen,
rather than what does happen. If marijuana leads to addiction, it may lead
to more heinous crimes. Eliminate the drug-related cause and you eliminate
the criminal effect. Fair enough. The real answer is for each child to be
cared for by adults and have a good education, which obviously would reduce
their chances of pursuing a career in crime. Why don't friends and foes of
Question 9--and Question 2, for that matter--donate their money and effort
to our schools, so budget cuts won't gut children's chances of a quality
education?

Nor do Question 9's opponents want to face the logical counterargument:
Alcohol deserves the same reaction as marijuana. No one is condemned for
sitting at home and getting plastered; only when they get behind a wheel
and endanger the rest of us are they, ideally, properly and deservedly
prosecuted. The difference between drinking liquor at home and using
marijuana at home is...well, what IS the difference?

The trouble with both questions, and those engaged in the debate, is their
consistency or inconsistency--it's hard to tell which. Nevada is,
politically, a conservative state. Conservatives are supposed to believe in
your right to be left alone.

That right has been invoked on countless occasions. Other states refused to
allow legal gambling. Other states banned prostitution. Nevada has allowed
both, the latter within limits: it's legal in rural areas only. Of course,
if you are in Las Vegas and can't find a prostitute, either you aren't
looking or you aren't a high-roller on the Strip.

Homosexuals want to be left alone to live their lives with the same rights
and understanding the rest of us are entitled to. Users of marijuana in
their own home ask the same. Instead, society tells them their right to
privacy is less than the rest of us should enjoy. That isn't conservatism
or liberalism, consistency or inconsistency, bigotry or tolerance. It's
stupidity. Where is the ballot question to outlaw that?