Amendment to ban gay marriage in Colorado
Re: “Gay-marriage face-off; Opponents kick off state ballot drive,” Feb. 2 news story.
Last week, Coloradans for Marriage, a coalition of religious and family groups, kicked off a drive to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. They will need 68,000 signatures to get the proposal on November’s ballot. Before you sign, I encourage you to consider these questions:
1. Is the primary reason you are considering signing based on religious beliefs? If so, remember that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
2. Is marriage simply a legal contract between a man and a woman, or could it also be said that marriage is based on love? If love is important, then we should remember the 14th Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” If the right to marry is in fact the right to marry someone you love, then gay people are clearly being denied the equal protection of the law.
Colorado’s constitution should serve to strengthen the Constitution of the United States, not attempt to circumvent its principles.
Kieren Taig, Windsor
…
I am still waiting for someone, anyone, from the anti-gay side to explain to me how my loving marriage of 13 years is threatened by any outside force, let alone another loving marriage. It is the absolute height of hypocrisy to call oneself a Christian who supports marriage, while at the same time working to deny two loving committed human beings the right to wed.
The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once wrote, “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal.”
Even if the anti-gay-marriage amendment passes, I take solace in the fact that people like Phillip Porter Jr., the Pentacostal pastor who is leading the effort, will permanently reside on the wrong side of history. Don’t join him.
Tim Walmer, Littleton
Reasons to approve of President Bush
Re: “Reasons to disapprove of President Bush,” Feb. 1 Open Forum.
Letter-writer Vivian Taylor gives us her list of reasons to disapprove of President Bush, and wonders how those who approve of his performance can do so. I can’t speak for others, but here are some of the reasons why I feel George Bush has done a commendable job as president:
He has followed a principled, resolute and bold approach to leading the country during one of its more difficult periods.
He has made his positions clear, and has done what he said he was going to do.
He has advocated and followed new approaches to solving long-standing problems.
He saw that the federal government did what it was supposed to do to bring us out of economic recession (in spite of significant opposition to tax cuts).
He has been a constant and effective voice for the cause of freedom throughout the world.
He has exhibited the compassion of a spiritual man as leader of the country.
He has carried out his duties in spite of the persistent negativism and unwarranted criticism of his detractors, many of whom obviously don’t know a principle from a pineapple and whose sole objective appears to be to gain political advantage.
Tom Hughes, Golden
…
“I just want to know what that 40 percent is thinking,” writes Vivian Taylor, regarding President Bush’s 40 percent approval rating. Here’s what we are thinking:
No terrorist attacks on American soil in more than four years.
Invasion of a rogue nation where the leader was responsible for countless deaths; Saddam Hussein is now on trial for some of his crimes.
Disarmament of Libya of WMDs.
Free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq; women enfranchised.
The Patriot Act, which allows law enforcement to talk to one another and gives them the tools to fight terrorism.
A president who has authorized the data mining of communications from known terrorists outside the U.S. to people inside the U.S.
Someone courageous enough to address Social Security.
Two conservative judges added to the Supreme Court who believe it is not their job to create law but only interpret it.
Accountability in our schools.
Tax cuts which led us out of a recession.
A robust economy.
Osama bin Laden and other al- Qaeda members in hiding and being hunted by U.S. and allied troops.
No “interns” in the White House being inappropriately treated.
Jim Kutsko, Denver
…
I would like to pick up a few crumbs that Vivian Taylor of Aurora left on the table in her excellent letter where she listed 21 reasons to disapprove of the president.
Not only did Bush choose to invade a country that never attacked us, he chose to occupy that land. This is another Vietnam, another quagmire, another no-win situation that his father was smart enough not to get us involved in.
This is what happens when our country is run by a C student.
The polarization of America is yet another “accomplishment” of Bush. This was amplified by the State of the Union speech last week where Democrats frequently sat while Republicans stood up and cheered during that annual charade of democracy. Bush has created an ownership society, the haves vs. the have-nots, one where you are on your own. If you question the president, you are labeled unpatriotic. You have to pick a side in Bush’s America. You are either a liberal or a conservative or you don’t care.
R. Koch, Aurora
Obsolete books?
I own several apartment buildings, and two or three times a year we have to gather up 40 or 50 brand new phone books and haul them to the dumpster. What a waste of paper and other resources. I don’t know of anyone under 75 who still uses a phone book. Rather than just dumping them on doorsteps, why not deliver phonebooks only to those who order them?
J.B. Reed, Denver
Bait and switch
Re: “Energy lab sees staff, funds cut,” Feb. 7 news story.
I read with interest The Post’s article, as it clearly demonstrated how President Bush makes use of one of the oldest con artist tricks – the “bait and switch” scam – as a method of leadership. In his State of the Union address last week, he proclaimed that he will aggressively pursue alternatives to oil to cut our “addiction,” yet his budget, which Bush had approved long before his speech, cut funding for research and support for alternatives to oil and increased funding for oil exploration. This is classic example of the con artist at work.
David Briggs, Broomfield
Energy policy
Re: “A new roadmap for tackling oil addiction,” Feb. 3 editorial.
No energy policy is adequate unless it takes the laws of thermodynamics into account. These are the laws of physics that determine frugal usage, such as the matching of energy quality to end-use. They also prescribe the physical possibilities, thereby guiding us about what should be done. Electrical energy, for example, is of such high quality, and obtained at such a premium, that it should not generally be used for heating – a low-grade end-use. Also, only solar conversions prove ecologically sane. All other sources do more damage than benefit.
Wendell G. Bradley, Windsor
Colorado Voices
If you have good ideas and a writer’s touch, we hope you’ll apply for Colorado Voices. It is a den for part-time columnists, a feature we created in 1999 as a forum for contributors from across the state.
Send us two sample columns, 600 to 700 words each, along with a cover letter describing your background, your interest in Voices and whatever else you think we need to know.
Deadline for entries is 5 p.m. on Monday, Feb. 20. E-mail them to us at voices@denverpost.com (no attachments, please), or by U.S. mail to Mary Idler, Denver Post Editorial Page, 1560 Broadway, Denver CO 80202. Provide your address, phone numbers and e-mail address.
The Open Forum
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202
Fax: 303-820-1502
