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

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.

Re: “Logan should have known culture,” May 6 Ellen Sweets column.

It is dangerous and certainly politically incorrect for a male person to express or even agree with the views expressed in Ellen Sweets’ column on the assault on CBS reporter Lara Logan. It is maybe sad, but true, that women are more vulnerable than men in mobs. That is just what Ms. Logan volunteered for: placing herself and a few male colleagues at risk in a violent mob. I’m not even sure that it made much difference that the mob was in Egypt. Violence in mobs is not peculiar to Muslims. Radical feminists have convinced at least some women that they are the equal of men in all circumstances. Some women may be, but most are at terrible disadvantage in hand-to-hand combat and mobs.

We are all glad that Ms. Logan was not killed. She could have been and her male colleagues could have suffered the same fate in attempting to protect her. Risk to women, themselves, their would-be male protectors and to their mission is one reason why our military has declined to place them in ground combat roles.

J. Bruce Laubach, Highlands Ranch

This letter was published in the May 11 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

I read the headline “City clears jail deputies” (May 10 news story), but what my eyes saw was “Michael DeHerrera, Part Deux.” From the outside looking in, people should be afraid to go to Denver. Police are out of control and protected by a bureaucracy that looks the other way. Killing a 135-pound man over a pair of shoes is silly beyond comprehension. Any protocol that allows for this needs serious review.

Michael R. Hudson, Pueblo

Re: “ ‘Geronimo’ for bin Laden offensive,” May 6 Simon Moya-Smith column.

Simon Moya-Smith expresses outrage over Osama bin Laden having been code named Geronimo, and asks how others would feel if the name had been Malcolm X, Cesar Chavez or Thomas Jefferson. Honestly, I wouldn’t care. By CIA policy, code names are meant to be void of any relevant connection with the subject — for obvious security reasons. To suggest that using Geronimo as a code name for bin Laden is somehow equating Native Americans with terrorists is absurd. If he’d been code-named Jefferson, I would not believe it was because the CIA was suggesting bin Laden favored states’ rights and a limited federal government.

Furthermore, language evolves. Yes, probably the first use of Geronimo was as the name of an Apache warrior. But today the word is also used as a wild, exultant cry, like “Yahoooo!” A “John Hancock” is a signature. “Mae West” is a life preserver. “Dorothy Hamill” is a hairstyle. “Caesar” came to mean any supreme ruler, and is the origin of “Kaiser” in German, and “czar” in Russian.

Jacques Voorhees, Dillon

This letter was published in the May 11 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Simon Moya-Smith seems intent on taking umbrage every time a person not of American Indian heritage uses the name Geronimo, or any other “Indian” reference. The name Geronimo has long been used synonymously with acts of daring and bravery. Geronimo the man fought alongside “Americans” against the “Mexican” forces and then later against “Americans.”

Perhaps the code word was a bad choice, but it might help Mr. Moya-Smith to know that as children, we all argued over who got to be Geronimo. The name meant that we were the bravest and most daring of all. My brothers and sisters used the name as a term when we jumped from a cliff into the river below. We meant no disrespect. We were telling everyone within hearing distance that we were about to attempt an act of daring bravery. Believe me, we yelled out “Geronimo” with pride and we expected great respect for our daring deed.

So lighten up, Simon, stop expecting to be “belittled and dehumanized,” and take a little pride. The name was chosen probably more because Geronimo was considered an adversary who was hard to track down and also maybe because others listening in on conversations might not understand what was meant.

Most people use the name with no disrespect.

Cheryl M. Kimberley, Buena Vista

This letter was published in the May 11 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

I’m a 44-year-old black woman and I find it annoying when whites express pity for the racism my ancestors endured in America. That’s because “pity” seems to clash with the pride I feel when I think of the deplorable unfairness and hardships my people have overcome.

While reading Simon Moya-Smith’s column on Geronimo, I didn’t feel pity for Native Americans. Instead, I felt deeply hurt that the U.S. government would treat Native Americans in such an appallingly callous and disrespectful manner. A black man who I greatly respect was responsible for the government’s outrageous insensitivity; I felt embarrassed for him.

Maybe pity isn’t the way non-racist whites feel towards blacks. Maybe they’re just deeply offended by other whites’ despicable, racist behavior. In fact, maybe they feel pride for black accomplishments just as I feel pride for traditional Native American culture, which greatly influenced our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Like me, maybe non-racist whites just want everyone to be treated with dignity and respect.

Courtney West, Centennial

Re: “United we stand after the death of bin Laden?” May 4 editorial.

Your editorial attacks “hyperpartisans” on both sides for not crediting President Obama and/or President Bush for tracking down Osama bin Laden. But why did you give Obama himself, the hyperpartisan-in-chief, a pass?

Obama’s statement on the night of Sunday, May 1, mentions only the “tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals” over 10 years, with no direct or indirect acknowledgment of his predecessor, who set up the apparatus which made it possible. Obama also said one of his first acts was to give “top priority” to the search for bin Laden, implying that Bush hadn’t tried or had abandoned the idea.

Obviously both Obama and Bush deserve credit for the outcome. But if we want unity, the president of the United States needs to be the one to set the tone, act with class, and credit the efforts of those who came before him. In that regard, Obama fell far short.

Ralph L. Cumming, Centennial

This letter was published in the May 10 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

My wife and I just watched President Obama give an interview to “60 Minutes” about our successful mission against Osama bin Laden. That mission was as complex and difficult as it was unprecedented. Those involved in its planning and execution deserve our praise for their professionalism and our thanks for its success.

Our president has demonstrated time and again that he is an extraordinary man for our extraordinary times. There is no doubt that he is president of all Americans. There is no doubt he is commander in chief of our armed forces. There is no doubt that we are fortunate to have him working every day for all of us. And he does it with intelligence, courage and grace.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Jim Engelking, Golden

Re: “Higher parking rates at DIA justified as ‘benefit to travelers,’ ” May 3 news story.

John Ackerman, Denver International Airport’s chief commercial officer, claims that higher parking rates at DIA are “a direct benefit to travelers.” I don’t know of a single traveler who would agree. Parking prices at the airports in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Chicago may be higher, but they’re all in developed areas. DIA is as big as Manhattan and most of it is vacant. Mr. Ackerman and his airport are just taking advantage of their monopoly on airport parking to exploit us. We can’t stop them, but we don’t pretend that we support them.

Jeffrey Zax, Denver

Re: “What debt ceiling?” May 6 David Harsanyi column.

The debt ceiling David Harsanyi references in his column is akin to another mythical ceiling. We’ve all heard of the famous “glass ceiling” that women try to break through to achieve upper-level management jobs. While this so-called ceiling is made of a tough yet fragile substance, it is possible to break through and achieve victory over it. In a weird, antithetical twist, the same cannot be said about the national debt ceiling. We fly through this farcical barrier as though it didn’t exist, no resistance whatsoever. What is it about the national debt ceiling that makes it so easy to penetrate?

What material is the national debt “ceiling” made of that members of Congress pretend to wrangle over and effortlessly raise into the cosmos? The national debt ceiling is composed of blue sky. Fact is, it’s the very same blue sky that Ben Bernanke uses to produce tens of trillions of free money to bail out, reward massive fraud and failure with, and subsidize everything in the known universe.

Jack Pera, Telluride

This letter was published in the May 10 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Re: “A partnership that could bring peace,” May 5 Jimmy Carter column.

Jimmy Carter thinks that the agreement between Hamas and Fatah can bring peace. For someone who has been so wrong so often, it’s amazing that he still is gulled by terrorists and dictators. Does he really think that a group that bombs school buses, cheers brutal murders, and mourns the death of Osama bin Laden is interested in peace? Always wrong; never in doubt.

Tom Giordano, Denver

This letter was published in the May 10 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Re: “A partnership that could bring peace,” May 5 Jimmy Carter column.

Jimmy Carter thinks that the agreement between Hamas and Fatah can bring peace. For someone who has been so wrong so often, it’s amazing that he still is gulled by terrorists and dictators. Does he really think that a group that bombs school buses, cheers brutal murders, and mourns the death of Osama bin Laden is interested in peace? Always wrong; never in doubt.

Tom Giordano, Denver

This letter was published in the May 10 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Re: “Man beaten by Denver officers awarded $795,000 by City Council,” May 3 news story.

I would like to know when the citizens of Denver are going to stand up for themselves. The police are our last line of protection from criminals. When the police act in a criminal manner, which seems to be quite often lately, the very fabric of society is torn. Who do you ask for protection when the police themselves are beating you to near death?

It is not sufficient when the police who are shown to be at fault are merely dismissed and a monetary award is given to the victim. Sure, it only happens in a small number of cases and is only taken seriously when there is unquestionable evidence, but that isn’t going to help the victim get over his injuries. Once is too many times for the police to beat an innocent person, or any person who is not a credible threat. The police are in a position of trust, and should be judged in their actions the same as any person in a position of trust who commits a serious crime.

Stanley Beitscher, Arvada

This letter was published in the May 9 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

I read in The Post that Alexander Landau, who was beaten by police for daring to ask for a warrant to search his car, still trusts the police. I do, too. I believe that 99 percent of the Denver police do a good job, but that 1 percent are out on their own, living by their own rules. What I don’t understand is why the 99 percent support the 1 percent. If I were one of the 99 percent, I’d do everything I could to get rid of the 1 percent. Wouldn’t you?

Ken F. Kirkpatrick, Denver

This letter was published in the May 9 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.