Have you ever wanted to turn to that individual next to you on the street, in the hallway or in your classroom and scream at the top of your lungs, “are you brain dead?” I’ve heard that expression a lot lately and wondered what exactly would classify someone as a member of the Brain Dead Society.
Well, I read John La Fleur’s column (“Institution of marriage is for heterosexuals,” SN 4/20), and now I have seen the light.
I was sad while reading John La Fleur’s column (“Institution of marriage is for heterosexuals,” SN 4/20) on homosexual marriage, but not because of his line of argument.
The recent actions of Sen. David Jaye, R-Washington Township, are embarrassing and irresponsible for a man of his stature. Jaye’s position came into question Tuesday when Senate Majority Leader Dan DeGrow, R-Port Huron, issued a resolution to form a committee that will investigate the ability of Jaye to serve in the Michigan Senate. Charges were brought against Jaye in Florida earlier this month for assaulting his fiancée.
In a beautiful media stunt this February, governor Jeb Bush of Florida cried conveniently in front of a Baptist church supposedly because his black aides were being criticized for his abolishing affirmative action.
The last time I went to a wedding, the vows exchanged between the bride and groom said nothing about having children.
I am addressing this letter to John La Fleur and others who may agree with him. After reading The State News on Friday, I was appalled his column was printed.
Am I missing something or have others also noted an inconsistency in the administration’s explanation of police infiltration of Students for Economic Justice? On the one hand, MSU police Chief Bruce Benson responded to a Freedom of Information Act request for records and notes of the undercover operation by saying he destroyed them because they were no longer necessary. On the other hand, in grasping for straws to justify police spying on a legitimate student organization, President M.
As both a student and a fan of the First Amendment, I am glad to see that the battle over whether ASMSU will gain editorial control over the Red Cedar Log finally ended with a defeat of that proposal. There were some important legal concerns in the content of the bill that would allow ASMSU editorial control of MSU’s student yearbook; these concerns involved both First Amendment issues and problems relating to MSU’s anti-discrimination policy.
The First Amendment gives us the marketplace of ideas. Even the ignorant have their say. Reasonable citizens sort out the arguments and come to a decision on issues based on this dialogue. In John La Fleur’s “market,” the produce is rotten.
John La Fleur’s column is a good example of the line of thinking that causes hatred and prejudice in society today.
In response to the letter written by Anthony Kendall (“Original messages were offensive,” SN 4/20), I would just like to say that on a campus containing diverse people with equally diverse beliefs, sensitivity to differences is vital. Freedom of speech is also vital and some will say that where the two conflict, there is no right or wrong solution.
So I take it now that Pride Week is over, The State News is going to publish uninformed, uneducated, homophobic blathering? John La Fleur’s column was not only insulting, but embarrassing.
In John La Fleur’s column published Friday, he made public his ignorance of the topic of gay and lesbian relationships, as well as the role marriage plays in society. Sociologists recognize marriage not as a “legal union from which children are born,” but as “a multifaceted bond based on commitment, love and intimacy.” In addition, the reality of marriage is that many marriages remain childless by choice. La Fleur should have done some research before presuming to know what marriage means to American society.
I would hate to be John La Fleur’s wife. I can picture La Fleur coming home after a busy day.
I am writing this letter in response to John La Fleur’s column. I found La Fleur’s opinions to be ignorant and offensive.
If we subscribe to the ideas that John La Fleur suggests are correct in his column, we may find ourselves in a scarier, more unfortunate situation than what already exists by not allowing homosexual marriages. The way that marriage was described to me for as long as I can remember is that it is an institution for which people who love each other can live together with certain benefits and recognition - such as a joint tax situation or health benefits. Never was it described to me as “a legal union from which children are born.” The idea of marriage for the purpose of procreation is ridiculous.
The members of the Graduate Employees Union should be congratulated for their hard work in solidifying their collective bargaining victory. Graduate employees appointed as teaching assistants went to the polls Thursday and Friday to vote on whether they wanted to be represented by a union.
There is so much faulty logic and misused rhetoric in John La Fleur’s column, that one hardly knows what to respond to.
You have to feel sorry for the people of Peru if they are relying on President M. Peter McPherson to make sure they have a functioning democracy. McPherson’s paranoiac behaviors regarding Students For Economic Justice is far more damaging to this university than binge drinking and sports-related riots ever could be.