Bill would also help older, opposite-sex couples

To the editor:

It has been interesting to listen to the arguments against the domestic partner bill (Senate Bill 283) by opponents of the measure. Most of the arguments have been blatant attacks about same-sex couples trying to circumvent the will of voters.

A group missed in the debate happens to be opposite-sex senior citizens who might benefit from the domestic partnership bill. Many of these couples have suffered the loss of a partner and are collecting survivor benefits from pensions or Social Security. If any of these folks choose to remarry, they risk losing their only means of financial support. Instead of marrying, many seniors choose to cohabitate just to survive. Without the inherent protections marriage provides, and the $5,000 typical cost of "contractual arrangements" fondly cited by the governor as his reason for vetoing SB283, many seniors are left with few affordable alternatives.

The result is that they can't transfer property to each other without a huge property transfer tax bill.

Upon the death of one member of these couples, interest in any property reverts to the closest blood relatives causing the survivor to "buy out" the deceased partner's interest. Worse yet, the survivor may be forced to leave if his joint residence is not in his name. I can't think of a worse injustice that can occur to someone living in their twilight years.

The "family values" crowd seems interested in protecting families, but less interested in protecting the most vulnerable in our society.

Craig J. Dalebout

NORTH LAS VEGAS

Which is it?

To the editor:

Recently, Sen. Harry Reid said no terrorists being held at Guantanamo were welcome on U.S. soil ... no how, no way.

Then President Obama flies into town last week to raise money for Sen. Reid's re-election and we now hear from Sen. Reid that "some" terrorists "might" be released into the United States and we need not worry about it.

Isn't prostitution illegal in Clark County?

Sheryl Righellis

LAS VEGAS