Legislature’s failure to change adultery’s status as a crime (5 letters)
Re: “Bid to repeal adultery law dies,” May 7 news story.
Adultery as a crime with no penalty was a good compromise in 1972 and a good compromise today.
As chair of a two-year effort to codify and rationalize the penalties for almost all of what was to be considered criminal under Colorado law, it was my responsibility to explain the proposed new criminal code when it came to the floor of the Senate in 1972. All went well except for the removal of adultery as a crime. With Bible in hand, one of our members succeeded in treating adultery as a crime before this massive bill could be passed along to the House for its consideration and approval. The House would have none of this, a conference committee was appointed, and adultery as a crime with no penalty was the solution.
This was representative government at its best. That a large segment of Colorado’s population viewed adultery as criminal, and still does, was clearly recognized. That its criminality should be removed because of its being grossly misused as the basis for threats and extortions in divorce proceedings was also recognized.
A crime with no penalty? That’s an oxymoron, to be sure, but a good compromise. Today’s legislatures and Congress need more of such stuff.
John R. Bermingham, Denver
The writer is a former Colorado state senator.
This letter was published in the May 11 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.
As a practicing Catholic, I neither condone nor encourage promiscuity. However, the legislature’s failure to repeal an archaic law by not passing Senate Bill 244 is not so much a condemnation of adultery but an affirmation that the state has a right to police the morals of its citizens. Isn’t that the Taliban’s job?
Colorado Family Action Director Jessica Haverkate’s statement that “Colorado Family Action does not believe that as a state we should encourage the moral decay of our society, no matter how archaic the laws may be and appear to some” in itself contradicts our fundamental constitutional rights to freedom. Does Colorado Family Action also advocate that adulterers wear the letter “A”?
Janice Taraborelli, Aurora
This letter was published in the May 11 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.
Legal or illegal, adultery will still be committed. This is what’s wrong with politics today. Instead of working on the laws and changes necessary to save the United States from bankruptcy and eventual anarchy, politicians spend time trying to change people’s behaviors. Perhaps they should look in the mirror and try to change the behaviors of the image looking back at them.
Hank Fanelli, Greenwood Village
This letter was published in the May 11 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.
Please say it ain’t so! For a highly educated legal scholar such as Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, to say that laws based on morality “harken back to an earlier period, where a majority of citizens claimed the right to impose their values and morals on their neighbors,” comparing us to Iran, “where morality police roam the streets,” is nonsense! What laws are not based on morality? I’m sure these same neighbors, on whom I’m imposing my values, appreciate the fact that the law protects them from theft, vandalism, assault, murder and other immoral, as well as illegal, activities.
And when a journalist prints such a ridiculous statement from an “expert,” perhaps just to present the other side of the debate, it subverts reasonable discussion on this issue. Try instead to insert some common sense.
Kerwin Stover, Loveland
This letter was published online only. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.
The Republican votes against repeal of the old sexual immorality law reveals the essential hypocrisy of their ideology about government: Keep the government “off our backs,” but use the government to invade the privacy of our bedrooms. I sometimes get the feeling these people would regulate our hairstyles if they could get away with it. It seems what they really mean is “keep the government out of our wallets and off our property,” so that we pay no taxes and can disregard how our land use affects other people. The fact that occasional Democrats support immorality laws does not bely the basic partisanship of this issue. Dems generally support government regulation, so at least they are not being hypocritical.
Gary Sprung, Boulder
This letter was published online only. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.