Originally Posted By mele Honestly, just because someone is related to Dr. King, it doesn't really make them an authority on what God wants or what Dr. King would have wanted. I also don't think the absence of writings or sermons on homosexuality from Dr. King means that it was/wasn't an issue for him. People didn't do a lot of talking about homosexuality back then. Clearly there are a LOT of African-Americans who are against homosexuality but clearly, being discriminated against doesn't always result in a greater understanding or discrimination or automatically make one fight for fairness for all. (Apparently there are quite a few Blacks who are against Jews and vice versa.) It's sad but that seems to be the way things work. It's not just African-Americans who turn a blind eye to the problems of others. We've seen Mormon's do it and nearly every race under the sun has people who are fine discriminating against others.
Originally Posted By mele <<doesn't always result in a greater understanding or discrimination>> Should be: doesn't always result in a greater understanding OF discrimination
Originally Posted By piperlynne Ok Isn't the King thing off topic, I mean most of the posts in WE eventually get there anyway. . . Well as long as we went there. Does it REALLY matter what MLKJr. thought about gay marriage/homosexuals. Its really a question of whether or not the protection of their rights is founded in the constitution. Basically, I don't care what anyone "thinks" about the lifestyle. I care about what's legal and just under our constitution. Anyway. . Interesting discussion about the rest of it. Do I think the right wing is "collectively gone insane" No, not collectively. I think there are select group of extremely LOUD and ACTIVE entertainers, activists etc that are makeing "news" and that draws our focus to it. I think the same thing can be done when extremely LOUD and ACTIVE entertainers, activists, etc on the LEFT do the same thing. I don't agree with most of what these extremist (on either side) folks are saying and getting attention for, but they have the right to do it. And I support their right to do so. Now if, something were to happen that they could directly tie back to being INCITED by these actions, that would be illegal. I have more to say. . but I'm hungry and need to go get food. ;-)
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom My point is that I wish people would stop atributing things to Martin Luther King that are simply NOT true. Martin Luther King was an admirable man, but simply put he didn't do anything for gay rights. And as I pointed out "gay rights" has been a huge contention among the King family. Now if anyone out there can find anything, and I mean anything that demonstrates that King actually supported gay rights and same sex marriage then I will eat DVC Dad's "other" shoe. <a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K-0838/excerpts/excerpt_8673.html" target="_blank">http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K...673.html</a> <<You knew Martin Luther King. You met Martin Luther King or at least spoke with him. QUINTON E. BAKER: Yes. CHRIS McGINNIS: Did he ever verbalize or, I guess you could assume acknowledge the role of gay people within the black civil rights movement? Because really, I guess when you ran into him, it may have just been strategy sessions and general meetings and that kind of thing. QUINTON E. BAKER: Yeah, you know. CHRIS McGINNIS: Obviously, one of his people organized the March on Washington. QUINTON E. BAKER: Yeah, I know more of his, of the people around him, more so than Doctor King and no I didn't get a sense. No, I think that the sense that I got was that Doctor King was not very comfortable with the gay people in the movement, and I know he wasn't very comfortable with Bayard Rustin, and so that is to some degree Bayard—that's why Bayard had such a back seat. CHRIS McGINNIS: A peripheral role. QUINTON E. BAKER: Right, he had a crucial role, but it was behind the scenes in the process, so that was all that I can say about that. CHRIS McGINNIS: Did you see [Quinton sighs] did you know this from the actions, or did you see his thought process or his reaction to certain issues or gay people or— QUINTON E. BAKER: No, I really didn't see that, I mean, I don't think that it was— CHRIS McGINNIS: You just knew that he was a little uncomfortable. QUINTON E. BAKER: I know that he wasn't that comfortable with Bayard more than anything else, and I knew that because John was— CHRIS McGINNIS: Was that a personal thing, or was it a gay thing— QUINTON E. BAKER: It probably was, I don't know, I really don't know, I can't say. I mean, much of what I knew about that had to do with the fact that John worked with Bayard—John Dunne—worked with Bayard Rustin for a summer. CHRIS McGINNIS: For a summer, was this after—? QUINTON E. BAKER: You know, because those kind of issues were—I mean, because to some degree it was like the relationship between me and John, where in the relationship was there—the focus was on the movement, and whenever we interacted with people if they were not gay, it was mostly about the movement, so what people's personal reactions or responses were, I have no clue. CHRIS McGINNIS: So, when John worked, I guess when you worked through John that when John worked for Bayard, he saw things that would indicate this discomfort. QUINTON E. BAKER: Yeah, doctor King was not very comfortable with—I mean Bayard was not closeted by any means [Laughter] CHRIS McGINNIS: How not, was he just flamboyant, or was he? QUINTON E. BAKER: Yeah, Bayard was a bit flamboyant.>>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I mean everyone who's weighed in on it, of all stripes.>> <Then you're wrong.> No, I'm not.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Plenty. As has been pointed out by Coretta Scott King, and other important associates from the time such as John Lewis and Julian Bond. You might want to check out their comments on the subject.>> <What Martin Luther King said and did are two completely different things. <a href="http://www.thenewblackmagazine...ndex=477" target="_blank">http://www.thenewblackmagazine...ndex=477</a> Although, Liberals will point to the fact that one of King's top advisers and organizers for the March on Washington, Bayard Rustin, was an openly homosexual man as proof positive that King was in favor of homosexual marriage. The reality is, this example merely shows us that King was in favor of showing an attitude of love towards all people, regardless of their sexual orientation.> That doesn't show that what King said and did are two different things - that's a non-sequitur with what you posted. King didn't address the issue, so "what he said" is simply unknown. What he DID was continue to use an openly gay man in a crucial role despite threats from Hoover and Thurmond that it could "discredit" the march, and fear even among his inner circle that it could do so. King continued his association anyway. That was a pretty gutsy move for 1963. And Mrs. King, Bond, and Lewis are quite clear that they feel gay rights (including marriage) are very much civil rights. They worked with Dr. King, something his daughter and niece (who were children when he was killed) cannot say.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<King didn't address the issue, so "what he said" is simply unknown. >> Thank you for backing up something I clearly proved beyond a reasonable doubt. <<What he DID was continue to use an openly gay man in a crucial role despite threats from Hoover and Thurmond that it could "discredit" the march, and fear even among his inner circle that it could do so. King continued his association anyway. That was a pretty gutsy move for 1963.>> Yes, it was gutsy and admirable as well. But hey, President Bill Clinton had an openly gay man in a promient advisory role but still gave us "Don't Ask Don't Tell" after promising he would abolish the ban on gays in the military ( as I recall it was a campaign promise ). <<And Mrs. King, Bond, and Lewis are quite clear that they feel gay rights (including marriage) are very much civil rights.>> Yes, we absolutely know how Mrs. King, Bond and Lewis feel about that subject. <<something his daughter and niece (who were children when he was killed) cannot say.>> And apparently MLK didn't have much to say about Homosexuality and same sex marriage either, pity. And boy howdy its amazing what recognition and credibility the King name bring to your camp, on either side of the arguement.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Mirror?? How many different ways can you say "I know you are but what am I?" And think that no one notices.
Originally Posted By piperlynne WARNING *** OFF TOPIC **** Ok, the last post was COMPLETELY off topic and below me BUT - **RANT ON** It amazes me how quickly certain people will allow their otherwise thoughtful arguments to be completely discounted by personal attacks and childishness on subsequent posts. OBVIOUSLY there is a history and I have no idea where it started, nor do I care. But instead of going back and forth about who started what and snide little comments, why not just start over and have an actual discussion about issues. Stop making personal attacks (even if you're coerced - show your maturity, I'm assuming that those of you that are doing this ARE at an age where you really should know better)Attack the issue, but attack it with facts. Hold your little grudges - fine, but maybe, just maybe you'll learn something by listening to the other persons opinions instead of dismissing them or attacking them just because they're made by a certain person. Or don't, whatever. . .I'll just keep doing what I do and start to read something then get irritated by the childishness. **RANT OFF** Ok, I'm better now
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<King didn't address the issue, so "what he said" is simply unknown. >> <Thank you for backing up something I clearly proved beyond a reasonable doubt.> You're welcome. And no one said otherwise, actually. <<What he DID was continue to use an openly gay man in a crucial role despite threats from Hoover and Thurmond that it could "discredit" the march, and fear even among his inner circle that it could do so. King continued his association anyway. That was a pretty gutsy move for 1963.>> <Yes, it was gutsy and admirable as well.> Thank you. <But hey, President Bill Clinton had an openly gay man in a promient advisory role but still gave us "Don't Ask Don't Tell" after promising he would abolish the ban on gays in the military ( as I recall it was a campaign promise ).> That is correct, and I've criticized Clinton for this countless times here. But this tarnishes King's actions in the 60's... how?? <<And Mrs. King, Bond, and Lewis are quite clear that they feel gay rights (including marriage) are very much civil rights.>> <Yes, we absolutely know how Mrs. King, Bond and Lewis feel about that subject.> Good. Which is what I originally pointed out to DVC_Dad. <<something his daughter and niece (who were children when he was killed) cannot say.>> <And apparently MLK didn't have much to say about Homosexuality and same sex marriage either, pity. And boy howdy its amazing what recognition and credibility the King name bring to your camp, on either side of the arguement. > Before Stonewall (1969), the whole issue of "gay rights" was one brought up by at best a very small handful of courageous gay people in the Mattachine Society and one or two other small groups. It just wasn't brought up. I originally responded to DVC_Dad wondering how there was any connection between civil rights and gay marriage, and pointed out that many of the pioneers of the civil rights movement have come out in favor of gay marriage, and Dr. King himself worked closely with an out gay man, at some risk. That's all.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Well I assume everyone here reading these posts can see why Tom's posts carry a bit more weight than the average Conservative Republican's posts on this subject? Right?
Originally Posted By mawnck <------ Trying to find a reason to care about how MLK felt about the GLBT issues. Failing. Sorry.
Originally Posted By mawnck <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT</a>
