LETTERS: Marriage ruling won’t harm Christians

To the editor:

The Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality has led to lots of weeping and gnashing of teeth by some folks on the religious right (“Right to wed OK’d,” June 27 Review-Journal). The question is, why? What effect does this ruling have on you? If you believe that marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, no earthly court can alter your belief. You are free to believe whatever you want.

This decision does not pave the way for an all-out assault against the religious freedom of Christians who disagree with it. Your religious beliefs are guaranteed by the First Amendment. That right was reinforced by including this wording in the decision: “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”

Do you feel that your heterosexual marriage is threatened? If so, you have bigger problems than marriage equality, and counseling might be in order. The only thing that this ruling changes is that two people of the same gender, who love each other, can get married. You can define marriage any way that you want. This ruling does not, in any way, define marriage. What it does do is provide equal protection to all under existing law.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. The clause is not intended to provide “equality” among individuals or classes, but only “equal application” of the law. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

When religion clashes with law, however, folks try to codify their religious beliefs and force those beliefs on others. If a law is blatantly unconstitutional, it is unenforceable. The Constitution does not permit any state to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms afforded to couples of the opposite sex.

JIM GRAHAM

LAS VEGAS

Sports mascots

To the editor:

I am usually bored by Ed Graney’s lengthy dissertations on the obvious. However, his commentary on racial unrest and knee-jerk reactions to what people believe is politically correct was outstanding (“Reasoned discussion would be nice change,” June 27 Review-Journal). Mr. Graney’s column should be a must-read for all who demand that sports teams change their traditional mascots and nicknames. Go Rebels!

BOB BURDICK

HENDERSON

Cowabunga Bay safety

To the editor:

Regarding the article on Cowabunga Bay (“Health district penalizes water park in Henderson for safety violations,” June 28 Review-Journal), the Southern Nevada Health District is really looking out for the safety and health of the public. Or not.

Let’s do the math: A water park is short nine lifeguards following a near-drowning. Cowabunga Bay is fined $118, but is then given 30 more days to correct the violation. That probably adds up to a heck of a lot more than $118 in savings for the business. No wonder Cowabunga Bay runs short crews. Way to get ’em, health district!

JON COLBERT

HENDERSON

Gun-control laws

To the editor:

Looking at statistics for the number of murders committed in various countries, the U.S. actually rates low, coming in 111th at 4.7 murders per 100,000 people. Some of the countries with the highest murder rates (more than 50 per 100,000) have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. Switzerland has some of the loosest gun laws in the world, and yet has one of the lowest murder rates at less than 1 per 100,000 people.

What these statistics tell us is that guns are not the problem and that providing more gun control will not abate the number of murders here in the U.S. As demonstrated by the Tsarnaev brothers in the Boston Marathon tragedy, other means of inflicting carnage will be used when guns are not available. If Dylann Roof had not had access to a firearm, he could easily have used a bomb to carry out his demented act of violence at the South Carolina church.

Roof was no different than the Tsarnaev brothers or other mass murderers in the U.S. They are individuals with deep psychological problems who have been turned into terrorists, radicalized to the point that they believe what they are doing is necessary for the preservation of their individual group, their society or even the world.

What we need to do as a society is figure out what can be done to prevent this radicalization in the future. We must be sensitive and caring to others, demonstrating love and kindness, but with a “tough love” attitude and the willingness to step forward and identify individuals who need help. I don’t pretend to know how to attack this basic problem in our society, but I do know that more stringent gun control is not the answer.

TOM BIVINS

HENDERSON