Letters | Defending marriage


Clarification: A Jan. 12 story, “A tale of two predators,” stated that Brent Brents estimated he had raped 60 men, women and children in his lifetime. In fact, he guessed he raped 60 people during the seven months he was out of jail. During his lifetime, he guessed the total was in the hundreds.

Defending marriage

As a liberal, card-carrying Democrat, I am nonetheless appalled by Pamela White’s article “Defending divorce” (Uncensored, Jan. 5). When nearly one out of every two marriages ends in divorce, divorce hardly needs defending. Besides that, the article is filled with erroneous assumptions and information, which I would like to debunk.

To consider it to be “meddling” that a proposed law requiring couples with children to take a class about the impact of divorce and to have a “cooling off ” period prior to divorcing demonstrates no appreciation for the havoc divorce leaves in its wake. Children have no veto power in a decision that will forever alter their lives. Minimally, parents should learn about the insidious ways divorce affects their children.

In regards to the proposed waiting period, the author writes, “Once two people have decided they can’t stand the sight of each other, there’s really no place to go.” As a therapist specializing in work with couples on the brink for nearly three decades, I know that divorce is almost always a unilateral decision, leaving the desperate spouse in the dust. “Left-behind” spouses will jump at the opportunity to slow things down.

Additionally, though there are many unhealthy marriages, the author assumes there are only two ways to handle this dilemma — get out or stay miserable. But there’s another way — improve relationships so people feel happier and more connected. There are marriage-friendly therapy and evidenced-based marriage education classes that truly change the dynamics of failing relationships.

Should this legislation pass, the author worries that women will get stuck in psychologically abusive relationships with alcoholic, controlling husbands. Research suggests that severe problems account for only 10 percent to 15 percent of all divorces. Other divorces are due to garden-variety problems — poor communication, growing apart or an inability to manage conflict — all of which are solvable.

The author also refers to a valid statistic that more women than men file for divorce, but her hypothesis about why this happens — women’s unfair share of housework and child care, infidelity, money problems — is off base.

Most women leave because they feel emotionally neglected despite years of trying to get their husbands to be more responsive. Again, with help, these problems are resolvable.

Divorce should not be looked at as a jailbreak from prison. Research tells us that, contrary to popular belief, people in long-term, healthy marriages live longer, are healthier, happier and do significantly better financially. Their children do better across countless dimensions.

So before jumping to the conclusion that putting a beat between the decision to divorce and moving out is Big Brother in action, consider the benefits of spouses working things out, keeping their families intact and tucking kids in at night … together.

Michele Weiner-Davis, director of the Divorce Busting Center/Boulder

The vast majority of divorces are from low-conflict marriages. Research shows considerable harm to children of divorce, including academic, social and psychological issues, as well as higher rates of poverty. Recent study of lifetime effects of children of divorce also showed an expected five-year decrease in lifespan for children of divorce versus children from intact families.

Given the real challenges for these children who have no voice in the matter, it’s not too much to ask parents to be fully informed and to consider if their marriage is reconcilable. There are provisions for spouses in danger, because no one wants to harm men or women in these situations. But divorce is too quick and easy, and for the benefit of children, it is worth slowing things down, in my opinion.

and easy, and for the benefit of children, it is worth slowing things down, in my opinion.

Lori Lowe/via Internet

A Montana mockery

(Re: “A people’s victory in Montana,” The Highroad, Jan. 12.) The idea that this is a victory for the people is preposterous. It was people who were excercising their free speech, but are now denied. People are free to band together in groups and publicize their point of view. The converse is totally and utterly unconstitutional, and the recent Montana decison will surely be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. This is no different than banning books and movies. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote — to avert the evil of the dangers of unfettered speech, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

David Lewis/via Internet

Nice fracking job

Jefferson Dodge’s Jan. 12 article “County to consider new fracking regulations” about the Boulder County commissioners is so very important. Thank you for keeping track and reporting what’s going on. Yes, counties can have regs in addition to [the] state’s, contrary to what [Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission] Director [David] Neslin would have us believe. A Jan. 3 court ruling says so; see our website (or it will be posted there soon):


Randee Webb/via Internet

Broomfield’s whores

I’ve often remarked that the White Man is digging his own grave by gambling in Indian-owned casinos, so much so that the tribes will earn enough to buy America back and evict the whites back to Europe, or wherever they came from.

Now, Broomfield intends to accelerate this process with a $1 million gift to the tribe to help them out with the illadvised Arvada-based Candelas project, by building the Plutonium Parkway (they call it the Jefferson Parkway, making Tom Jefferson turn in his grave), a terrible disaster planned for western Arvada. The Southern Ute Indian tribe owns this development, and without this porkway, it will not be a moneymaker for the tribe, so they say.

By building the Plutonium Parkway, Broomfield and their ilk will deliver a “double whammy” to the people of the Front Range of Colorado. First, by destroying the viability of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge, this “Plutonium Parkway” will eliminate a vital wildlife refuge from being so. Moreover, the Rocky Flats NWR remains one of the few, last and necessary wildlife corridors from the mountains to the plains, and by eradicating this NWR by building this atrocity guarantees Colorado a diminished future.

Secondly, by the movement of mountains of plutonium-laced dirt, remnants of the nuclear weapons facility formerly on this site, the prevailing winds will induce cancers of every make and kind amongst all humans and animals living and breathing the plutonium, killing many and maiming the rest.

I wish the Southern Ute Indian tribe (owner of the Candelas project, driving this porkway) no ill will, but I’d prefer them building this development within a poor country such as Afghanistan, a land that really needs such investments.

As for Broomfield, I’ll continue to buy nothing there, as the worst thing you can do with a spendthrift is to give them more money to squander on their real estate whores.

Tony Burg/Broomfield

Misleading comic

I am writing to express my concern and dismay regarding the usually quiteamusing Patrick Mallek’s cartoon “Bob’s New Dollar Bill for 2012,” which I saw in what I believe was your first issue of the new year (Bob the Prairie Dog, Jan. 5).

The element marked “Swap Fed seal with note’s true backer,” in which the image referred to is a Hebrew letter underscored with a dash or a line, seems to indicate that “Bob” believes that either the state of Israel, Jews in general, or some other Jewish organization is the “true backer” of the American dollar bill. This perpetuates the stereotype that some international Jewish group is somehow, behind the scenes, in charge of the world’s money.

I am surprised and offended that a publication such as yours, which purports to speak to all the members of the Boulder community, and to stand for such radical ideas as equality, non-discrimination and the like, would publish something so clearly anti-Semitic.

If my understanding of the meaning of this aspect of the cartoon is inaccu rate, I would appreciate knowing that, and knowing what meaning was intended.

If, as I suspect, this slipped by the editorial team, I believe apologies are in order — from the editorial team and the cartoon’s creator to your general reader population. If this was printed with the full knowledge and understanding of the editorial team, I would like to know that as well, so that I can cease to patronize the Boulder Weekly and its supporters.

Thank you very much for taking the time to consider and respond to my concern.

Lisa Napell Dicksteen/via Internet

Editor’s note: Cartoonist Mallek says the mark, encircled by a red star, was meant to be a state symbol of China.

Danish has gotten moldy

It’s time to give somebody else the space that Paul Danish takes up in Boulder Weekly. Stop wasting paper with his drool. There are only a few that can make it through his articles.

Time to find somebody that actually lives and works in Boulder.

Stephen Haydel/Boulder

Boulder Weekly welcomes your correspondence via email
(letters@boulderweekly.com) or the comments section of our website at
www.boulderweekly.com. Preference will be given to shorter letters that
deal with recent stories or local issues, and letters may be edited
for style, length and libel. Letters should include your name, address
and telephone number for verification. We do not publish anonymous
letters or those signed with pseudonyms. Letters become the property of
Boulder Weekly and will be published on our website.