Gay marriage a money maker for Nevada

To the editor:

Instead of increasing taxes or cutting funding for education and social services, the state of Nevada should take advantage of California’s ban on gay marriage and make it legal here.

A June 2008 Williams Institute/UCLA School of Law report titled “The Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples on the California Budget” reports that “allowing same-sex couples to marry will result in approximately $63.8 million in revenue over the next three years.”

The report went on to say that “spending by resident same-sex couples on their weddings, and by out-of-state couples on tourism and their weddings, will boost California’s economy by over $683.6 million in direct spending over the next three years.”

Las Vegas is one of the top wedding destinations in the country. By simply allowing gay marriage, Nevada would stand to benefit from revenue due to increased tourism, marriage licenses and other associated spending. There would be no need to talk about increasing room taxes — a move that many argue would decrease tourism — because tourism would get a boost as a result.

I know that there will be many people opposed to allowing gay marriage in Nevada, most likely on “moral grounds.” However, morality becomes a moot issue if you consider that Nevada legally allows prostitution and gambling and has the most liberal divorce laws in the country.

Nevada’s current stance on gay marriage — it’s forbidden by a voter-approved constitutional amendment — will serve only to hurt us in the long run.

Sylvia M. Rowe


In defense

To the editor:

In response to S.G. Hayes’ Sunday letter to the editor, in which he criticizes potential cuts in military spending:

— Our military budget for the past 60 years has been between 40 percent and 60 percent of our discretionary spending.

— All the combined monies spent on the military yearly, by all other countries, is less than what the United States spends.

— We have 700 military bases in foreign countries.

— We are putting missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic (which border Russia) to prevent a missile attack if and when Iran develops a nuclear capability.

With the war on terror as our “major” concern, why are we building two submarines per year? Do we think Osama bin Laden is scuba diving somewhere?

Unless Mr. Hayes works in the military/industrial complex, I feel his reasoning has been formed by the “fear factor” that our government has been using for decades. Why does there have to be another war, unless we instigate or start it? Why are we killing thousands of innocent civilians in our two wars? Why are we putting our soldiers at risk?

We should be purely defensive in nature and strengthen our internal security. We should negotiate with reasonable people in all foreign countries — they are not all radicals. Remember, we all have our Timothy McVeighs.

The biggest problem with Mr. Hayes’ opinion is that if you promote making armaments and having troops all over the world, it perpetuates the use of these forces. Why have them if you don’t use them? Do we have to keep the military/industrial complex in business?

I was hoping that a reduction in military expenditures could be used for social improvement and lowering taxes, but the actions of our government in the past few months has eliminated that hope. With “Wall Street socialism” — which is really fascism — our dysfunctional government has preformed as usual. Big business wins and we pay.

Bob Giaquinta



It’s not over

To the editor:

The Review-Journal’s Vin Suprynowicz was right on in his Sunday column. Conservatives do not shake hands with those who would destroy this country.

Cooperate and unite for the sake of the country? Just like the Democrats have done? From Day One they claimed President Bush stole the election.

Conservatives will fight. It is not over.

Ronald L. Runnells


On freedom

To the editor:

In response to J.C. Watts’ Sunday column, “Winning football and winning elections”:

The Republican Party must be purged of both its theocratic and socialist elements. This is why the Democratic Party is less dangerous, though equally evil: Although they are clearly collectivist, they have yet to attack the fundamental founding principle of freedom of conscience.

How shocking that the party of Lincoln and Jefferson has become the party of Marx and John Hagee, attacking both the right of property (capitalism) and the right of mind (separation of church and state). The freedom to think and the virtue of responsibility and wealth should be hailed by the Republican Party, not abandoned by it.

Joseph E. Collins


News Headlines
pos-2 — ads_infeed_1
post-4 — ads_infeed_2
Local Spotlight
Home Front Page Footer Listing
You May Like

You May Like