U.S. population growth
Re: “Isn’t 300 million people enough?” Nov. 3 guest commentary.
Yes, 300 million people is enough. Our environment cannot continue to handle the “come one come all” attitude that some support. We must realize that immigrants and the births of their children are responsible for nearly 90 percent of that growth that is projected to give us 400 million people by 2043. For our own sake, our children and grandchildren’s sake, we must look very seriously at what can be done to control the population explosion and give both those who have lived here for generations and those in the upcoming generations a chance at the great American Dream. At the present rate of growth, none of us will be allowed to enjoy the land of milk and honey because we will have exhausted all of the milk and honey and could face famine, thirst and overcrowding just as some Third World countries presently suffer from.
Our resources are of great value and must be protected and preserved. Many will be surprised when no water comes from the faucet, no water is left to irrigate our food supply, no fuel is available for our cars, buses, trains and airplanes, and the land has been covered by homes, high rises, roads and trash. We must not let this type of future surprise us, we must place controls on their use now. The most sensible method is to stop illegal immigration immediately and control and limit legal immigration.
Sharlene Loose, Greeley
…
Jay Tutchton laments the U.S. population growth and its effect on wildlife, saying, “We simply have to make room for other creatures or we face a future on a lonely planet … .” Say that to the 40 million Chinese men who will not be able to find a wife because so many of the females of their generation were aborted in an effort to keep the population down. Say that to Italian government officials who are bribing their citizens with 1,000 euros per child because their current birth rate is not high enough to sustain their population and support their retiring workers.
We should learn lessons from these countries. The U.S. average fertility rate is 2.13 children per woman. If we decrease this rate at all, we’re looking at a negative fertility rate. As far as I can tell, grizzly bears, lynx and wolves, though beautiful and essential to the environment, don’t contribute to Social Security and Medicare, won’t love and care for you in your old age, and don’t add to the forward march in science and the arts.
Rachel Terry, LittletonAs this year’s election comes to a close, I find myself thrilled for it to be over. Sadly, my happiness comes less from the prospect of the positive changes that may be affected by Tuesday’s outcome, but more because I am excited to be rid of all of the campaign ads on TV and the nightly phone calls from various campaigns. The sheer amount and the negative tone of the majority of the ads from both Republicans and Democrats are maddening. There is constant discussion on school bullying and teaching children to be nice and respectful to one another. How can we be teaching them to respect others when politicians, those people supposedly responsible for representing us all, are frequently going on television and disparaging one another? It isn’t prime-time television programs people should keep their children from watching – it’s the political ads that run between them.
Amber L. Ehret, Denver
Did the Dems win or are they turning red?
So, the Democrats finally won some races across the nation and here in Colorado. The Democrats have reason to cheer, but from a deep red Republican’s perspective, we didn’t lose that much.
Many Republicans didn’t vote for our new governor, Bill Ritter, but guess what? He is pro-life. Most Republicans probably don’t agree with his abortion exceptions, but just the fact that he understands something as basic as allowing babies to live in the womb gives us hope for his leadership of the state. And, more importantly, the people of Colorado understand the need to protect marriage by soundly passing Amendment 43, and seeing Referendum I for what it was – a stealth gay-marriage amendment. Also, no marijuana for the tokers.
So, is Colorado slowly turning blue? I think not; the Democrats are finally figuring out what is important to the average American, and slowly turning red. The Republicans now have a chance to regroup, clean up their act, and remember why they won in ’94.
Michael Young, Parker
Colorado’s marriage law and civil unions
As a fifth-generation Denver native and a gay man, I find it rather nice that Referendum I lost by only a few percentage points and Amendment 43 won by virtually the same margin. The gay and lesbian community should take these results as an affirmation that times are changing. We must take into consideration that Colorado is known to be a state infested with Christian fanatics, ignorant farmers, and bigots. The results of Tuesday’s election prove that almost half of Colorado voters cannot be placed in these catagories.
We haven’t lost anything because we have never been granted equality in the first place, but we will. Times are changing and people are beginning to evolve intellectually and spiritually, no matter how hard you all try to keep that from happening. Colorado and this great nation will one day be known for its appreciation of all people.
Tim Ahlborg, Denver
…
I find myself in a unique situation. On the one hand, I am glad that there is finally a Democratic majority in the U.S. House to challenge the hold of the current administration. I am also happy that we have a centrist Democratic governor, supported by a legislature that has a Democratic majority. On the other hand, I find myself deeply ashamed, for the first time in 30 years, to be living in Colorado. What am I ashamed of? That the voters in this state see fit to put a definition of marriage in the Colorado Constitution.
Some people see this as a moral issue, but according to my belief system, gay marriage is quite moral. And, most definitely, bigotry is immoral.
Others see gay marriage as a threat to “traditional” marriage. Can we not allow the possibility that two people of the same sex can devote themselves to each other as much as a man and a woman may?
And exactly how does this threaten my stable 22-year marriage? And why can we not allow that churches may marry whomever they want, and that the government should stay out of it?
Greg Robinson, Denver
…
I was born and raised in Colorado. I’ve spent my last few years out of state getting my education, and I didn’t plan on coming home for nine more years. However, after Colorado voters chose to make a judgement in the name of fear and bigotry, I do not plan to return. Perhaps once I am done with all of my education, that 56 percent of Coloradans will be more educated as well. Perhaps then they will understand that homosexuals are their sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, neighbors and co-workers rather than aliens from Alpha Centauri or demons from the lowest pits of hell.
I didn’t expect Colorado voters to approve domestic partnerships, but I hoped that they wouldn’t publicly declare their hate for an unpopular segment of the population.
James Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
…
I wish to commend the voters of Colorado for having the courage and foresight to vote for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Their decision to bar gay marriage is a reflection of the true heart and soul of a nation in touch with its democratic roots and moral foundation. The family is the fundamental cell of society. The family – and through it, all human society – has its source and origin in marriage. Marriage is ordered to the procreation and education of offspring. Hopefully, other states will act with equal vigilance to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. In doing so, one does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.
Paul Kokoski, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
To send a letter
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 600, Denver, 80202
Fax: 303-954-1502
Guidelines: We welcome 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.
To reach us by phone: 303-954-1331
