Fundamentals of common-law relationships
The most essential feature of the tradition of common-law marriage is missing from the current conversation about the recent court decision challenging the legislature to make clearer definitions of the practice. Marriage in its most basic sense is the reciprocal giving of one’s word to one’s partner or spouse. That act may then be confirmed in a religious ceremony and recognized in the larger community by registration, but marriage fundamentally consists of that exchange of vows and promises by the two parties.
Ministers, rabbis, imams and judges may witness a public declaration of that fact, but they do not “marry” any couple. They preside over the two participants’ giving of one’s word to each other. Hence, when one partner reneged on the vow, the outmoded practice of suing for breach of promise was grounded in this fundamental dynamic.
In 18th century England, the famous Anglican evangelist and founder of the Methodist movement, John Wesley, fell in love with a woman who was nursing him back to health, and he understood that they had given such a private promise to each other. When she ran off with one of his preachers, partly because his brother Charles had plotted to undermine their relationship, the jilted priest could have taken her to court for breaking her promise. Because he had already seen the heartache such a move had caused another couple some years earlier, he refrained from doing that and satisfied himself by writing a morbid poem about lost love.
In the rush to regulation, the state’s attorney general, governor and legislature should not lose sight of this basic aspect of common-law relationships, and indeed of all marriage or equivalency.
Will Gravely, Littleton
Outrage over soldiers’ deaths – and Iraq war
Re: “Response to killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq,” June 26 Open Forum.
Letter-writers Dave Petteys and Brian Stuckey ask where is our outrage over the killing of two U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Here is our outrage: All the deaths in Iraq are in vain. None of them would have happened if we had minded our own business and not invaded that nation. Proper-minded folks mourn each and every needless death. No one person’s life is worth more than another’s. Furthermore, the principle of “an eye for an eye” has not worked in the Middle East. Just ask the Jews and the Arabs, who have been following this tenet to no avail for hundreds of years.
See? That was easy.
Joe Felice, Aurora
…
Dave Petteys criticizes people who have been critical of the American treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib for being insufficiently outraged at the sadistic murders of two American soldiers. He further advocates beheading 100 prisoners, filming the executions, posting the videos on websites, and then doing the same thing to Americans who oppose these actions. I have no idea why Petteys thinks that critics of Guantanamo are somehow not angry at the barbaric murders of our soldiers. I do know, however, that following his prescriptions would destroy the right to free speech and other constitutionally protected liberties that we enjoy as Americans. At the same time, it would turn our nation into an international pariah.
Greg Francis, Denver
Death of Patsy Ramsey, mother of JonBenet
Re: “Slain girl’s mom dies,” June 25 news story.
My thoughts and prayers go out to the Ramsey family with the death of Patsy. Besides the killing of JonBenét, the fumbles of the Boulder police and everyone who felt Patsy murdered her daughter, Patsy died a slow and agonizing death over the past 9 1/2 years. To be accused of such a crime has to be a cancer in itself. May Patsy rest in peace and go be with JonBenét and hopefully find out from her who took her life. Maybe now this crime will be solved, but only through the eyes of her mother.
Ashly McQueen, Denver
Coverage of PrideFest
Re: “PrideFest ’06 rallies around ballot politics,” June 26 news story.
I was disheartened to see the poor coverage your otherwise fine publication gave to Denver’s annual PrideFest celebration. As a lifelong daily newspaper reader, I know that any other group of 200,000 people gathering for an event on one day, in one place, would get wider coverage, both in photographic and column-inch coverage. The one photograph you published was naturally of an outlandish but attractive drag queen. Is The Denver Post trying to provoke an even wider chasm between the LGBT community and the general public by reinforcing the ignorant belief that all gays are cross-dressing drag queens (and bless their hearts, they are some of the finest, most selfless folks I’ve ever met)?
Chris Hayward, Lakewood
Rainbow Family event
Re: “Rainbow campers get court hearings today,” June 23 news story.
The Forest Service’s fuss about the Rainbow gathering is unnecessary. Every year, for a week or two, a group of peaceful and Earth-loving people get together to celebrate the Fourth of July by praying for world peace and communing in nature. The land they temporarily camp on represents a minuscule area compared to the overall Forest Service land. The Rainbow people show an admirable respect for the beauty and sacredness of the land, and afterwards they work to restore the area to the original condition. For the rest of the year, on public lands, cows are allowed to graze, drillers can search for oil, or corporations can cut the trees. Two weeks of camping by earthy people in a small area does not make a dent, comparatively.
Douglas Dupler, Boulder
Nuclear global cooling?
In the early 1980s, we learned how a “nuclear winter” would follow as a result of even a “small” nuclear war. The effect of dust and smoke in the atmosphere would lower the Earth’s temperature. Today, we are faced with global warming due to excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Has anyone thought about the rather “Doctor Strangelove” approach of using periodic measured nuclear explosions to balance out the effect of global warming while we transition to renewable energy sources?
Richard Zietz, Lakewood
Improving the American health-care system
Re: “Focus on the patients,” June 22 Cal Thomas column.
Cal Thomas got one thing right in his column on improving American medicine: There are great gains in quality and efficiency that can come from creating more effective systems of care. He further believes that no major reforms would be necessary, if only hospitals and emergency rooms simply found smarter and more efficient ways to provide care. If that were true, our problems would be solved.
The biggest barrier to creating efficient, effective systems of care is the fragmented, inefficient financing system we use in the U.S. An efficient financing system would allow us to direct people to the right care, for the right condition, at the right time. Our current financing system creates incentives to deny the most effective and lowest-cost care, forcing people into expensive, inefficient and less-effective care. Emergency rooms are not overcrowded because they have poor systems of care; they are overcrowded because our financing system leaves millions of people with no other place to get care.
American medicine has enormous room to improve, but we will never realize that promise until we provide access for everyone. Believing otherwise is self-deception.
Mark Earnest, M.D., Denver
The writer is vice president of the Colorado Coalition for the Medically Underserved.
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.
