Domestic partnership bill in Colorado House
Re: “Marriage’s best shows no prejudice,” April 24 David Harsanyi column.
I was all set to support a domestic partnership concept until I discovered that House Bill 1344 is only for gay partners.
The idea that behaviors can establish a civil-rights category of humanity has always been a faulty idea. A homosexual is no more special than a bisexual or a heterosexual. Why then would politicians propose legislation that only applies to same-gender couples seeking to simplify their sharing of home ownership, medical decisions, inheritances, or any other so-called “rights” of traditional marriages?
It would not take that much effort to produce a domestic partnership “long-form” with “options” anybody could “contract in agreement to” with whomever they wanted. Argue then about which of your “1,000 rights married couples take for granted” should be available to choose from. Afraid of the question?
Proposing simplification of contract rules, which are already available to all, for the exclusive benefit of homosexual relationships is nothing more than “special rights” based on sexual preference. Either homosexuals have more political muscle than the rest of us or the Colorado legislature has ulterior motives.
How can you cite fairness and equality as your motivation under these conditions?
Steve Schweitzberger, Littleton
Wayne Allard’s record as a Colorado senator
Re: “Allard still in Capitol shadows,” April 22 editorial.
I appreciate your editorial almost as much as I appreciated Diane Carman’s column on April 18 (“Allard’s record speaks for itself”), although she forgot to mention his vote for torture in support of the Bush administration. That’s why I find Allard one of the worst senators now serving.
He can be counted on to vote however they say, whether it’s for torture or against any women’s issue. He’s a total NRA kiss-up, and is against any investigations into anyone who contributes to the Republican Party – and on and on.
If we want any kind of accountability from this administration and Congress, we need to replace yes-men and women like Allard and Beauprez and Musgrave and even Tancredo, with real representatives who have the best interests of Colorado, not Halliburton, at heart.
Ronald Else, Lakewood
…
Diane Carman’s column (“Allard’s record speaks for itself”) is pure derision for Sen. Allard from beginning to end. I have never had high regard for Carman’s objectivity and sense of fairness. But using Time magazine’s article naming Allard one of the five worst U.S. senators as an excuse to vent her spleen is beyond the pale.
Allard was elected and re-elected by a majority of Coloradans. I doubt that Carman was one of us, but he is her senator now, whether or not she agrees with him. I doubt that many of us who support him agree with everything he does.
The column contains 20 paragraphs, each carefully crafted to ridicule Sen. Allard for something he did or did not do. I’m sure many of her readers said, “Right on, Diane!” But I suspect that a majority of us are disgusted. I couldn’t find one instance where she even attempted to justify and support her obvious opinion that Allard deserves her ridicule.
There are at least two sides to every issue with which senators have to deal.
Earle Beasley, Pagosa Springs
…
Re: “‘Workhorse’ quip sets image,” April 24 news story.
Sen. Wayne Allard characterizes himself as a “workhorse.” According to a voting study by Congressional Quarterly (a bipartisan organization), Allard’s votes in Congress side with the president 98 percent of the time. That says to me not work, but laziness – and the fact that he cannot think for himself. Colorado deserves better.
Jen Eichberg, Denver
…
I’ve been a Democrat since 1972, so I don’t agree with Sen. Allard on many issues. However, recent criticism of his lackluster representation of Colorado has failed to consider one of his most important contributions: his instrumental role in the investigation of the sexual abuse of cadets at the Air Force Academy.
Allard could have easily settled for a superficial inquiry into the charges and bowed to pressure from the military bureaucracy to look the other way. But he steadfastly insisted that the abuse had to stop and that the offenders had to be held accountable. A shake-up at the AFA followed and new policies were put into place to counter the permissive attitude. That shake-up rippled throughout the military system, initiating more investigationsthroughout all branches of the armed forces. I may disagree with Allard on many issues, but I respect him for standing up for the female cadets at the AFA. I think any evaluation of his record must take his support of them into account.
Ed Cable, Denver
Aurora election
Re: “Aurora’s special election” pro-con, April 25 op-ed.
Creation of a special district tax in Aurora will provide much-needed mental health care for uninsured and underinsured and allow better usage of taxes now spent on mental health issues handled by police, courts, hospitals, etc.
Two cents on a $10 purchase is a small investment to make a dramatic impact on the quality of life for all Aurorans. Whether or not you have a friend, neighbor or family member (as I do) with mental health care needs, taxes you already pay will have a greater impact if this special district is created.
It’s easy for critics to misrepresent the intent of this election and point fingers about how and why the election came to be scheduled in May. The Aurora City Council had full knowledge of the request and approved it. The campaign for the special district has taken every step with integrity and full compliance with state laws. Evaluate the issue on facts rather than political posturing. Before you vote, check out www.citizensforahealthyaurora.com.
June Smigel, Aurora
HOV traffic on I-25
I’ve watched traffic for many years on the HOV lanes on I-25 and always wonder why it takes between five and six lanes of space to provide two lanes south in the morning and two lanes north in the evening for just a few drivers. Wouldn’t it be better to provide two or three lanes both ways all the time? Lanes for multi-occupant cars don’t appear to work in Denver.
Malcolm Hutton, Littleton
Population growth
Re: “Population growth slogs ahead despite state’s job losses,” April 20 news story.
The tone of this article reflects the usual obtuse mind-set about population growth. People tend to thoughtlessly assume or agree that bigger is better, growth is good. What is the obsession with growth? Problems associated with population growth are cropping up left and right, and yet we are continually brainwashed with the notion that everything should grow. Why? As environmentalist Edward Abbey said, “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”
Bill Alther, Denver
