No right to force our beliefs on others

To the editor:

Personally, I believe homosexuality to be a freak of nature. Same-sex marriage is incomprehensible. However, my personal opinions are not substantial to the core of the same-sex-marriage issue. What’s basic to the issue is that morals are derivatives of religions, and freedom of religion does not grant the right to force a religious-based morality on others.

I cherish my freedom, as do my fellow citizens. And our freedom dictates that our sanctimonious beliefs don’t govern other people’s lives.

I find same sex-marriage yucky, as do many others. But neighbors, when push comes to shove, like it or not, who marries whom is no skin off our noses, and freedom dictates it’s none of our damn business.



Gay marriage deduction?

To the editor:

I try to remain neutral on the subject of same-sex marriage. I couldn’t care less about what consenting couples do. But when it hits me in the wallet, I begin to take notice.

With the sacrament of marriage comes the ability to pay lower taxes, because married couples get an extra deduction. When multiplied by millions of new deductions, that would mean the government would have to raise my taxes to make up the difference. You know they won’t cut spending.

I propose that if same-sex marriage is allowed, the government remove the marriage deduction presently allowed by the IRS.



Bryce Harper

To the editor:

With the start of the Major League Baseball season, you may intend to place day-by-day updates on Las Vegan Bryce Harper, as you did last season. I certainly appreciate his talent, and I do look at his information in the box scores.

What I fail to see are the other players with ties to Las Vegas. As I recall, there were 11 major-leaguers with ties to Las Vegas who played last year, yet there was no daily mention of them.

I believe that the proper place for your “enshrinement” of Mr. Harper should be on the baseball pages of the Sports section, not on the front page of the Sports section. It would be nice if the other Las Vegans in baseball were also mentioned.



Term limits

To the editor:

America’s three branches of government were designed so each could provide checks and balances on the other two. But how can all three branches efficiently exercise their duties to provide checks and balances when only one has term limits imposed on it?

If the career employees of the State Department don’t like the incoming administration, they can simply go through the motions and wait for the election.

Same with Congress. Members know they have only to wait four to eight years for a more favorable administration, so they sit on their hands on both sides of the aisle and collect their salaries while avoiding doing what they were sent to Washington to do.

I suggest we impose term limits on all elected or appointed federal employees, including Congress and the Supreme Court. Senators could serve two terms, no more. Representatives could serve six terms for a total of 12 years.

The Supreme Court justices would be appointed for 10 years and then reviewed for a possible 10 more years. The presidential limits would be extended to three terms, or 12 years.

Perhaps when our elected officials realize they cannot depend on the taxpayers to fund their careers, they will come to Washington, get the work done, then go back to private life.

Our government was not designed for career politicians. We need to clean house in Washington, and this would be a good first step.



News Headlines
Add Event
Home Front Page Footer Listing
You May Like

You May Like