Sexual-abuse bills in the Colorado legislature
Re: “Church sways sex-abuse bills,” Feb. 12 news story.
The inclusion of public schools in proposed legislation making it easier for victims to sue in decades-old sex abuse cases is no guarantee that the Catholic Church will support the broader application of extending the statute of limitations.
In a letter read in all archdiocesan parishes on a recent Sunday, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver has called the more narrow, initial bills prejudiced, dangerous, anti-Catholic and unjust. He further stated that the Catholic Church is being unfairly singled out.
Indeed the church is being targeted, and rightly so. It’s about time. The church needs to be held accountable for its actions, especially after all the years of “sacred immunity” from secular prosecution.
Supporting the extension of the statute of limitations to include other entities, such as public schools, is nothing other than a ploy to delay justice.
Chaput’s ruse to include other public institutions is another lame example of the church’s stonewalling of justice. Instead of arrogantly circling the wagons, the local Catholic hierarch should reach out and embrace victims, regardless of when the abuse occurred. Since when does the passage of time excuse and forgive crime, ecclesiastical or secular? And why should religious crimes not be prosecuted just because secular crimes might not be? Noblesse oblige!
Tom Stumpf, Longmont
…
I am amused and confused by claims in recent articles on legislation aimed at protecting children. No one is singling out – or “targeting” – the Catholic Church but the church itself. The focus of House Bill 1088, House Bill 1090 and Senate Bill 143 is clearly the safety and protection of children. What could be more important? The issues are protection, safety, compassion, justice and access to due process.
For decades we have abdicated responsibility for the safety of children in the care of private institutions. It is this error these bills will correct. Eliminating the statute of limitations on sexual abuse will simply place it in the same category as murder, kidnapping, treason and forgery, where it certainly belongs.
Finally, I fail to see how researching and exposing the incidence of sexual abuse in public schools, without researching and disclosing the same within the church and its schools, says anything. The fact is this: We have such public records because public agencies have and follow procedures for handling and reporting cases of abuse. How about comparing the history of cover-up in private and public institutions, and working to eliminate this practice in both?
Jeb Barrett, Aurora
…
I am writing in opposition of House Bil 1088, House Bill 1090 and Senate Bill 143. These are bad ideas on several different levels.
As a family therapist who specializes in treating sexual abuse, I feel these bills do little to help victims feel validated or to help them heal from their trauma. There is a big difference between validation and vindication, though in the emotional turmoil of trauma it can be hard for some to see the difference. It is my experience that trauma victims who sue for damages are distracted by getting even/winning the lawsuit (often at the legal advice of their attorneys). The hard work of overcoming their trauma takes a backseat.
It is hard not to see this as a back-door attack on the Catholic Church, and to a lesser degree other religious organizations as well. Regardless of the expressed motivation, one has to wonder if this apparent singling out isn’t about exploiting an opportunity to silence a political foe, rather than to champion a cause or to follow the example of another state.
As an editorial in the Rocky Mountain News put it, this is just a bad law. The statute of limitations is there for a reason. If the statute of limitations is repealed for one crime, then why not for all crime? Why is this one crime being singled out?
Finally, these bills would often place economic hardship on those who have not committed any abuse – that is, all of us. The perpetrators or the actual enablers of the sexual abuse will likely not pay for their damages. If tax dollars are spent to pay for damages, the people of Colorado pay. If church congregations have to pay more to bail out their religious organizations, we pay.
If a fund to help victims is needed and taxation is required to subsidize it, that is one issue; to obtain this through the unanticipated consequences of these bills is quite another.
Jay D. Fellers, Englewood
Push to ban gay marriage
Re: “Gay-nuptials foes in lead,” Feb. 12 news story.
After reading last Sunday’s article, I felt nothing but anger towards people who say marriage needs to be between one man and one woman. The idea that gay marriage is an infringement upon religion is ridiculous. How can marriage possibly infringe on religion? When people get married, they are marrying each other because of love, not because of their religion.
A religious ceremony is only a means of becoming married. Religion does not define a marriage. One can be married by a priest, a judge, a captain of a ship, or an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas. They are still all recognized marriages; it does not make a difference.
People who are against gay marriage should take a good, hard look at themselves and ask why they would deny a fellow human being the right to recognize his or her love for someone else.
Dustin Lewis, Littleton
…
Ruben Mendez, vice president of Coloradans for Marriage, says, “There are a lot of folks out there that understand what we are doing … we’re just trying to make marriage something that is the same that it has been throughout history.”
A simple Internet search reveals that marriage has served many social, economic and sexual purposes over time. Marriage in the history of the United States has been used to discriminate against Native Americans, immigrants and former slaves. Let us be clear that our society is coming to terms with what we as a people want marriage to mean, not what it has always meant.
Prohibiting marriage and even civil unions to people defined as “gay” or “lesbian” attempts to impose a particular religious understanding of marriage on all of the people. The Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, allows people the freedom of expression and association. Therefore, neither the state nor nation is in a constitutional position to limit expression and association. Religious organizations are certainly entitled to establish their own rules of membership, behavior and rituals.
The entire debate will certainly be better served by being as factual as possible and recognizing the rights people have in the Constitution versus the restrictions imposed by religion.
Ted Hoyer, Littleton
Making the best of suburban sprawl
Re: “Highlands Ranch at 25 years old,” Feb. 12 Open Forum.
Once again, I am confronted with gross generalizations and negative opinions concerning Highlands Ranch, Douglas County and “urban sprawl.” Letter-writers Percy Conarroe, Scott Simmons and Steve Parisi show the general contempt for Highlands Ranch and its residents that I have experienced firsthand over the years.
I am a native of this great state, and grew up in unincorporated Arapahoe County, in what is now Centennial. My family has lived in Highlands Ranch for eight years, and we could not ask for a more pleasant neighborhood in which to reside. The schools are some of the best in the state. The design of roads and business centers make finding what one needs easy and convenient. Parks and open spaces are as ubiquitous as the six-lane roads. Wildlife is easy to find, with hawks, owls, foxes and a myriad of others right outside my door.
My family is not extremely wealthy, nor do we live beyond our means. We feel no pressure to keep up with the Joneses. Admittedly, that type of lifestyle does exist around here. We will also call to your attention that this attitude exists everywhere else, too. The aforementioned letters speak of greed and nepotism. I ask you: Is it different anywhere else? I think not. People find it very easy to malign the new kids on the block, conveniently forgetting that this is exactly how they got here, too.
Urban sprawl simply exists and will continue to until the population growth rate is zero. Where else do you propose we put a growing country? I say we make the best of it.
Don Crawley, Highlands Ranch
Facts about public property
Re: “Just the facts on state condemnation laws,” Feb. 12 guest commentary.
Let me state “just the facts” for guest commentator Sam Mamet:
Fact: The Constitution says “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” Not public purpose, not public benefit, but public use – i.e., for roads, parks or needful public buildings. Not to take from one individual and give to another for some wild dream of politicians and local officials getting more tax dollars or displacing blight.
Fact: We Americans have the right to be poor, and be poor anywhere we want, including the most beautiful mountain vistas and the prettiest sandy beaches or the worst parts of a city or town. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that government has the right to displace blight.
We need a constitutional amendment in every state of the union to end all eminent domain except where it is for true “public use,” as it is clearly stated in the U.S Constitution. It is too bad that our Supreme Court has fallen to such lows as to require such action.
David Ihde, Steamboat Springs
Colorado governor’s race
Re: “The wonkery gone wild,” Feb. 12 Fred Brown column.
Congratulations to Fred Brown for his analysis of the Democratic governor’s race. It is refreshing to read an opinion in The Denver Post that gives Bill Ritter some credit and recognizes him as a decent and honorable man.
The liberal press has projected him as an anti-choice ogre and has been most unfair, in my opinion. The former district attorney has always upheld the law. He has a long history of dedicated public service and has campaigned for nine months focusing on the issues of most concern to Colorado citizens – notably education, health care, farm issues and the Colorado economy.
The Democratic hierarchy should get its act together and support him as their candidate. I voted for 40 years as an independent, and Bill Ritter appears to me to be the most qualified candidate running for governor.
Joseph R. Zbylski, Castle Rock
Ski-town economics
Re: “Ski bum: another job Americans won’t do?” Feb. 12 news story.
As a former ski bum who worked many of the “jobs Americans won’t do,” I wish The Post would look at hard economic data before buying into the “lazy American” explanation for the disappearance of ski bums from Colorado resorts.
The reality is the same jobs I was offered through the state job service in Aspen in 1979 pay about one-third less today in real wages than they did when I arrived looking for work and a ski pass. In January of 1979, dishwashing, bus drivers and lift operators were paid $4.75 per hour. I accepted two jobs, washing dishes and driving a city bus. Adjusted for inflation, that $4.75 an hour would be $13.26 today. The reality is, dishwashers and lift operators are paid $9 or $9.25 and hour, a loss of purchasing power of about 33 percent.
In addition to lower wages, immigrant laborers have little ability to bargain for other benefits or demand fundamental rights such as minimum wage, a 40-hour work week, overtime or time off for family emergencies. Entry-level immigrants in the country for four months on a visa do not have realistic access to courts, and undocumented or illegal workers dare not go to court to protect their rights or even collect unpaid wages.
Americans thus find themselves in a “soft slavery” market competing with labor that is either effectively indentured to its employer or desperate to escape dire poverty at home and forced to take whatever is offered and keep quiet when labor standards are trampled. Is it any surprise that college-educated Americans are not flocking to join that labor force?
Mick Ireland, Aspen
Neighborhood’s request for city to move homeless from Denver shelter
Re: “Neighborhood tells shelter to hit the road,” Feb. 12 news story.
Denver’s St. Francis night shelter is a place occupied every night by hundreds of men and women with no other place to find rest. I urge people who have a home to visit 2323 Curtis St. some night after 11 p.m. What they would immediately realize is that the people inside this needed facility are there because it is one of very few places where they can at least be safe, have access to toilet facilities, and escape the blame and judgment they are subjected to because of their economic status in our community.
It’s too bad that a handful of Curtis Park neighbors have so little tolerance for this safety net that affords the poorest layer of our society a mere place to be. I wager that if city diplomats canvassed the Curtis Park neighborhood door-to-door, they would find that most people living there understand that this minimal shelter does infinitely more good than warrants its closure at this time.
This refuge must not be terminated when it is so obviously vital to the well-being of those who use it. The homeless people at St. Francis are our neighbors.
Shirley Whiteside, Denver
…
It’s heartwarming to see that Denver’s 10-year plan to end homelessness is off to such a rip-roaring start. During the first phase, the City Council made it illegal for homeless folks to sit or lie down on a public sidewalk. The second phase apparently involves chasing them out of shelters and into the cold. I guess the idea is to force them to walk to exhaustion during the day and then freeze them to death at night. Perhaps the hope of city officials is that, with little more effort and a few more cold snaps, they can avoid the difficult part of the plan, which involves actually providing these gentle and vulnerable folk a dignified place to lay their heads.
George B. Flynn, Littleton
TO THE POINT: Short takes from readers
Maybe Dick Cheney would have received a benefit from the firearms training provided by the military if he had not utilized the numerous deferments during the Vietnam War.
Steve Wells, Longmont
I note that President Bush is really trying to be the unifier he said he would be; he has reached out by inviting Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to go quail hunting with the vice president.
Carole Bayer, Boulder
Regarding the Cheney shooting incident: Have you ever seen a group of arrogant prima donnas (the White House press corps) act so juvenile during a press conference? You’d have thought someone took away their pacifiers.
Ron Perkins, Littleton
Congressman Bob Beauprez, a “me too” member of Congress, has made no effort to reduce the increasing national debt, but objected to budget-problem resolutions in Colorado. Now that Colorado has some debt room, he wants to be governor. How surprising!
John L. Tracy, Golden
Whenever a sliver of doubt starts to creep into my mind as to whether I should continue to support the Republican Party, I read more comments by Howard Dean, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid, and all doubt goes away!
Lloyd Hunley, Grand Junction
To have your comments printed in To the Point, please send letters of no more than 40 words to openforum@denverpost.com (no attachments, please) or 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202. Writers are limited to one letter per month.
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 mail to Mary Idler, Denver Post Editorial Page, 1560 Broadway, Denver CO 80202. Provide your address, phone numbers and e-mail address
