There is so much faulty logic and misused rhetoric in John La Fleur’s column, that one hardly knows what to respond to. But because he’s saying nasty things about me and my family and many of my friends and their families, I feel I need to say a few things myself.

La Fleur claims that “the institution of marriage was established as a legal union from which children are born,” holding this up as the single reason that makes heterosexual marriage valid. So would La Fleur advocate having the state dissolve childless marriages and rescind tax benefits once grown children leave home? If a stable, but childless, family unit has redeeming social value, how is the sexual orientation of the unit significant?

Of course “homosexual” (or bisexual or transgendered) marriages are not necessarily childless. We put together families much the same way that many “heterosexual” people do these days - from previous unions, with outside help or through adoption. Are all heterosexual people who are single parents, in second or third marriages or who are not the biological parents of all their children to be tarred with the same brush La Fleur uses on us?

Many types of families and unions between people exist and will continue to exist whether they are recognized by law and favored by government.

We should be moving forward to extend and secure basic human rights for all, not working to continue to restrict privilege to any subset of humanity.

Lisa Lees
East Lansing resident