“United 93” and the war on terror
Re: “‘United 93’: Remembering the real enemy,” May 9 Open Forum.
Letter-writer Brian Brandfas writes that the movie “United 93” ought to remind us of “who the enemy really is.” Then, instead of pointing out that none of our attackers were Iraqi, or had any connection to Iraq or to Saddam Hussein, he switches to an entirely irrelevant straw dog: Don’t listen to the people, including members of Congress, who “justify the actions of the terrorists as long it provides a political advantage or an opportunity to criticize the president.”
Brandfas appears to be referring to those who have opposed the policies that our president has pursued in Iraq. There is nothing in the movie to suggest that those critics were wrong in determining that there was no connection between Iraq and the tragedy of United Flight 93 or anything else that befell us on Sept. 11. Certainly, their opposition has nothing to do with siding with or justifying terrorism.
Let’s hope that few people come away from viewing “United 93” sharing such distorted and anti- American views. Instead, let’s hope this movie does remind us of the real enemy, and the need to pressure the president and his administration to refocus our resources on the real war on terror, which they have so largely ignored in favor of their ill-conceived and disastrous experiment in Iraq.
Felice Sage, Littleton
Legal rights for same-sex unions
Re: “Lack of legal basis for accepting gay marriage,” May 8 Open Forum.
Letter-writer Eric Krein’s attempt to justify a law defining marriage and limiting the legal rights of spouses to his version of marriage is the most bizarre, twisted logic and failure of facts that I have seen in a long time.
The legal benefits granted to contractually bound couples (marriage) have absolutely nothing to do with encouraging desired behavior. Marriage existed long before civil law, and thousands of years before our tax code was created. The tax benefits were put in place because there are different dynamics for couples than with single individuals. When the tax code providing joint filing rights for married couples was written, it was done so with the knowledge that Dad went to work and Mom stayed home. The right to Social Security benefits being based on the individual’s or spouse’s earnings was done for the same reason. The right to make medical decisions for each other became law because of the contractual relationship that exists between the two people. If a couple is living apart, or with other people, they retain those rights as long as that marriage contract is intact.
None of these benefits are sex-specific. None of them logically applies to only heterosexual relationships. A marriage with a license or a common-law marriage requires a court to separate the couple because they were involved in a legal relationship with each other. It defies all logic to state that these laws, civil laws written to provide benefits reflecting a legal relationship between two people, be viewed as applying only to heterosexual couples. A committed couple who is willing to legally tie the knot, however that looks, deserves the same rights.
Mandell S. Winter Jr., Denver
…
By inferring that those who disagree with him are anarchists and irrational, Eric Krein goes over the top in his letter. In fact, his argumentation itself is contorted.
If the legal benefits of marriage can be restricted to citizens who fulfill some arbitrary criterion such as one’s natural sexuality, that argument can be applied to other absurd situations such as denying the benefits of home ownership to righthanded people and requiring white men to give up their bus seats to people of color.
Krein fails to address why society encourages civil marriage at all. Certainly it is not about procreation, for if so, then only adults capable of child-bearing and -rearing would be permitted to marry. Once that issue has been settled, then it seems the dialogue ought to be about why same-sex unions would be more deleterious for American society than the innumerable disastrous opposite-sex unions that are having such a debilitating effect.
Jerry Fabyanic, Georgetown
Abstinence and developing healthy character
Re: “Failure rate of teen abstinence programs,” May 9 Open Forum.
Abstinence programs are not so much about “reproductive health” – a euphemism for unrestricted sexual practices and their consequences – as they are about development of healthy character. Rather than have our young people come into their sexuality as animals acting on instinct, abstinence programs instill a sense of respect and dignity both for oneself and for others, a refusal to be used or to use others for sexual gratification, and an informed decision to preserve sex for the profound gift of self in life- long committed love to another in marriage that it was meant to be.
The wisdom that would protect young people from impulsive, selfish and/or abusive behavior is denigrated as “archaic” by letter-writer Erik Moore’s thinking, resulting in epidemic levels of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, abdication of parental (especially fatherly) responsibilities, objectification of women, and abandonment of mothers and children.
Abstinence requires strength of character. Instilling this is the greatest protection we can offer our children. Handing out condoms and promoting abortion only engender the social woes we seek to eliminate. Raising up people of strong character, respectful of oneself and all alike, includes continuing to promote abstinence before marriage.
Becky Jennings, Centennial
2006 Colo. legislature
Re: “Toothless legislators move on,” May 9 Diane Carman column.
Whoever wrote the headline for Diane Carman’s May 9 column didn’t bother to read it. Carman definitely did not call the legislators “toothless.” In fact, she stated that “Coloradans did all right this year” and gave several examples of specific accomplishments in the recently concluded legislative session.
Actually, the only place in the column where the word “toothless” appears is a reference to the clean air standards “created by the Bush administration with the help of corporate polluters.” Carman states that things got testy when the legislature “tried to take on issues the federal government has botched.”
The headline on this article not only failed to reflect the content of the column, it demeaned a legislature which had the most productive legislative session in many years.
Wayne Knox, Denver
The writer is a former state representative.
Candidates’ tax plans
Re: “Tax plans: Dumb and dumber,” May 10 editorial.
If Bob Beauprez’s plan is dumb and Marc Holtzman’s is dumber, then The Post must be the dumbest. What is so wrong with tax breaks?
Annie Dalton, Denver
Felons and employment
America hates felons. I have been done with my sentence for eight years, and in that time have only been employed 50 percent of the time and homeless about the same. Most employers will not hire me, and if they do, I am the first person to get the ax if something goes wrong. Since Sept. 11, the problem is worse than ever. When the application says, “Felony conviction is not necessarily a deterrent to employment,” this is a flat-out lie. It is simply impossible for most felons to make a living in our society. American employers need to consider these souls.
I haven’t committed a crime since my release eight years ago, but the employment track record is ugly. I often wonder why the death penalty isn’t given as an option to those of us who cannot thrive after conviction. You think that is extreme? Step in my shoes.
Kathy Fox, Lakewood
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
