Marriage can’t feature religious test

To the editor:

Jacob Kessel (“Redefining marriage is not equality,” April 30 letter), takes Steve Sebelius to task for redefining marriage. I suggest to Mr. Kessel that any law that includes the marriage of gay people does not in fact redefine the act of marriage. Mr. Kessel is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He is defining marriage using two definitions, and a close look at his arguments reflects this.

He first wants us to see marriage as a civil union recognized by the law. Later in his argument he gives us a glimpse of the “sacred” definition he really has in mind. That definition is the one he believes his religion supports. If he did not, he would not use the term “sacred.”

Sorry Mr. Kessel, but American law doesn’t push your religious views onto non-believers ... or at least it should not, if the Bill of Rights means anything. And by the way, if the forefathers of this country ever agreed on anything, they certainly agreed that American law should not foster anyone’s religious views.

To the extent that state laws have to be changed and/or expanded to include gays in state-sponsored marriage contracts, this expansion has everything to do with providing equality to a minority within our citizenry.

RICHARD L. STRICKLAND

NORTH LAS VEGAS

Water supplies

To the editor:

With the enormous spider web of interstate pipes in the United States moving quantities of petroleum products from crude to finished product, why don’t we have a similar, but smaller network of pipes to move water from states (Ohio and Mississippi Valleys) that flood every two or three years?

This system could reduce drought problems in the central states and maintain a higher level in Lake Powell, Mead and others including a steady supply to Mexico.

Energy companies maintain their pipes while adding this cost to the end users, and water companies could do the same, perhaps at less expense than a panic pipe under Lake Mead.

THOMAS CAMERON

LAS VEGAS

Poor Steve Wynn

To the editor:

I was saddened to read about Steve Wynn’s comments (closed door, of course) to legislators and the governor regarding the serious health problem that Nevada gaming is facing (“Wynn warns gaming not in ‘healthy’ status,” Thursday Review-Journal.)

Does that mean the next time Mr. Wynn spends several million dollars for a vase to display in his Macau casino that the citizens of Nevada might have to host a fundraiser for him? It seems like the very least we could do for him — the man who graciously gave locals discounted tickets to see his art collection when it was displayed at the Bellagio.

TERRY COX

HENDERSON

Grow it, then kill it

To the editor:

We downsized about a year ago. We bought a bank-owned home that had a large front lawn, but the lawn, trees and shrubbery were dead. I decided to put in water-smart landscaping and expected to qualify for the water company rebates advertised.

To my surprise I was told my plan would not qualify, as my lawn and landscaping were not healthy and green. They told me I had to re-sod, or re-seed my front lawn (3,000 square feet), water and fertilize it to a healthy state and then kill it and have it hauled off to qualify.

So, I resodded, watered, fertilized and nurtured the lawn for a year, and now as I plan to remove it, I qualify for the rebate. Am I the only one who sees the lunacy in this? Additionally, I was told areas put in hardscape do not qualify.

I’m sorry, but just exactly how much water does cement need to stay gray? Could it be that water conservation incentives actually need to make sense?

PAUL BAUER

LAS VEGAS