The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Bid to repeal Colorado adultery law dies

Bid to repeal Colorado adultery law dies

By Tim Hoover
The Denver Post
Posted: 05/07/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT

Legislation to repeal a Colorado law prohibiting adultery narrowly failed in a House committee Friday amid arguments that lawmakers would be sending the message that fooling around is OK.

Under decades-old Colorado law, adultery is illegal, although there is no penalty attached to it.
Senate Bill 244 would have repealed that law as well as another that bans "promoting sexual immorality" by renting a room to unmarried people who have sex.

Anyone found guilty of "promoting sexual immorality" can receive up to a year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.
Rep. Daniel Kagan, D-Cherry Hills Village, the House sponsor of the bill, told members of the House Health and Environment Committee it was wrong for people to be prosecuted based on their marital status. He also said that whether people are cheating on their spouses is just not the government's business.

Spouses could be legally separated or simply have an open marriage that allows for other sexual partners, he said.
"I think it's not for us to question that," Kagan said.

Legal scholars such as Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, believe a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas sodomy law renders adultery laws unconstitutional. He said about two dozen states still have such laws on their books.

"It's quite disappointing, if not embarrassing, for Colorado to affirmatively retain these types of laws," Turley said. "These laws harken back to an earlier period, where a majority of citizens claimed the right to impose their values and morals on their neighbors.

"The notion of a government policing immorality runs against the grain of our constitutional system. That is more often associated with countries like Iran, where morality police roam the streets," he said.

While some Republicans have questioned whether repealing the prohibition on renting rooms for sex would allow someone to run a brothel, Kagan said there already are pandering laws in Colorado that ban the running of brothels. He said the "promoting sexual immorality" statute is rarely used, with only 20 prosecutions in the state over the past three years.

But Jessica Haverkate, director of Colorado Family Action, a political arm of Focus on the Family, said even though prosecutions may be rare, removing the language would be condoning irresponsible behavior.

"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," Haverkate said.

The bill had passed the Democratic-controlled Senate on a 25-9 vote, picking up four Republican votes in favor. But the measure failed Friday on a 6-7 vote in the House Health and Environment Committee, with five Democrats and one Republican voting in favor, and six Republicans and one Democrat voting against.

Rep. John Kefalas, D-Fort Collins, the lone Democratic vote against the bill, said he "didn't want to get involved in people's bedrooms" but also did not want to condone adultery. He said that might seem contradictory.

"I just know I don't support adultery," Kefalas said, adding that he did not understand why the law needed to be repealed.

Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver, who originated the bill, said he was disappointed. Steadman said he was just trying to get rid of an archaic law. He couldn't resist a dig at what he saw as the legislation's moralizing opponents.

"The bill's been put to bed," Steadman said, "hopefully with someone it's married to."

Read more: Bid to repeal Colorado adultery law dies - The Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_18013601#ixzz1LlcZopot

These types of laws are not fully supported by conservatives, many of whom have a libertarian streak. I oppose adultery and sodomy laws simply because if the government is involved in our personal behaviors in ways that we agree to, we can't complain when it gets just as involved in ways that vex us. Should the government be telling parents not to spank their kids? Should it sanction teenage girls getting abortions without the consent of their parents? If we allow government to govern our affairs on such an intimate level, there's no telling what manner of evil it may pursue. That's why we need to draw the line and tell government to get out of our bedrooms, our families, and our homes. Adultery is a very devastating assault on the family, but we'll deal with it ourselves, thank you very much!

1. Adultery is a SIN which is a devastating assault on the family AND on society in general.

2. Now a few questions, if you don't mind?
a. Who is the 'we' in we'll deal with it ourselves?
b. And how does the 'we' deal with it when adultery permeates the entire nation if there are no laws to regulate it?
c. If you are opposed to civil laws prohibiting adultery, are you also opposed to civil laws prohibiting homosexuality, gay marriage, bestiality, pedophilia, pornography, abortion and other such moral debaucheries?

Greetings, Pilgrim.

I have no argument on that point. In certain enclaves it makes sense to enforce adultery laws, such as in the military, the only sector of American society in which these laws are still in force.


Our entire basis of American law draws a distinction between the people of the United States and the United States government. All too often I hear on the Left that we can't complain about what government does because government IS the people. Our legal system was not founded on that fallacy.
With that established, the "we" I'm referring to is individuals and families that make up the American people as distinct from the American government. In answer to your second question, when the people turn lawless, another law will not help. The problem is deeper and more systemic, as I think you'll agree. As people turn their hearts more and more away from the Almighty, rampant adultery will only be the harbinger of things to come.


Yes. Did you not understand my point that if you let the government into the bedroom, it won't stop with just sequestering the things you approve of?


Marriage is a state issue and every state has the right to define it. Here in Idaho, I voted for the constitutional ammendment that passed making gay marriage illegal. It was already illegal, but now as a part of our constitution, the law cannot be assailed by activist judges.

Beastiality laws have sunk into antiquity, but have been replaced by animal cruelty laws in many places.

Not only is this still illegal, but laws have been strengthened to enhance penalties and ensure that offenders are publicly registered. I don't think sexual child abuse is in any danger of becoming legal.

What's even more disturbing about the existence of smut is how it's proliferated in ways that make it more accessible to children than ever. We keep our computer in the living room and our 8 year old knows he can only visit pre-approved sites. But I still worry because the porn industry keeps finding ways to interject its advertisements even in G rated browsing sessions. Do I think we could use some stricter laws here? Absolutely.


Yes, abortion should be illegal. Roe V. Wade should be reversed and government should be used to protect all life, especially the unborn. This is an essential function of government. You cover a broad range of malevolent behaviors which is difficult to answer so I broke it down. There is a difference between controlling the personal behaviors of people within their homes and families and protecting innocent life (your last example). I cited examples of how such intimate involvement can be used against Christians as well and why it's better to draw firm boundries to keep government out of our personal lives. The evil government is capable of with too much power outweighs the good it can do.

Romans 13 states:

Romans 13:1-5 (ASV) Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the [powers] that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same: for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. Wherefore [ye] must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

Governments are to enact laws for the common good of the people. Those laws are not to be created arbitrarily but rather to restrain and punish "evil". Since you agreed that adultery is a "sin", aka: "evil", then logically it follows that the government should enact laws to prevent and punish it. I don't want to get into a debate over what punishment(s) should be rendered. But I will state right up front that I do not hold to Theonomic Reconstructionism, i.e., aside from capital punishment for murder, which is a creation ordinance, I do not hold that capital punishment which was required in the old covenant administration within the theocratic nation of Israel, should be automatically mandated in the new covenant administration, particularly by the Church nor by governments.

Now back to the specific subject of 'adultery'... Marriage is a God-ordained covenant between a man and a woman. Adultery is a violation of that covenant and divorce is allowed when one of the marriage partners is involved in its commitment. The government, therefore, should retain adultery laws if for no other reason than for the innocent party who may sue for divorce based upon this breaking of God's marriage covenant. As it stands presently, with any possible exception noted, one cannot file for a divorce on the basis of adultery, at least in the continental US.

Lastly, US judicial law was originally founded upon a Judeo-Christian ethic, vis-à-vis the Ten Commandments, e.g., theft, murder, perjury, etc., including adultery. Therefore I think it is only right that there be a retention (most states already have long-standing laws prohibiting adultery on the books) and implementation of those laws.