Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Honoring 'civil' rights

Comments

Return To Article
  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 18, 2012 4:56 p.m.

    "But as King himself constantly reminded, the struggle for civil rights was not simply about race. It was, and is, about the rights a just nation confers upon all people, and enforces fairly for all people, regardless of cultural, physical or economic status".

    I applaud the DN for this editorial.

    Obviously, at the time of Dr. King many things were not included or even thought perhaps. But that doesn't mean the principle of the civil movement will not apply to all human beings who are denied rights to equality within society.

    We as a society are constantly evolving and getting closer to the principles of social justice. Of course, these changes bring fear to those who have been conditioned to believe in a certain way, or have the need to feel superior to others.

    Equality, civil rights, social justice should be the pursue of all those who believe in Christ and aspire to a better world.

    Do you need to be a Christian to be just? Of course not! You just need to treat others as you wish to be treated yourself.

    We need to re-assess ourselves to see if we are contributing to the dream.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 18, 2012 11:48 a.m.

    @Rifleman;

    1) Like I told Hawkeye, homosexuality is not a behavior. Behavior = action. Homosexuality is innate, an orientation, not an action.

    2) People do not go to prison for "behaviors", they go to prison for illegal actions. Some of those actions fall into the category of "sin" only by chance, they are illegal because they cause harm, in one form or another, to others in society, not because they fall under the umbrella of "sin".

    Christ's view on the subject of Civil Rights is irrelevant. He isn't here, we are.

    @Uncle Charle's;

    I already worship a god, just not your god. This is a free country and we're free to worship whichever god we choose. Get on board with the Constitution.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 18, 2012 10:16 a.m.

    Re: RanchHand | 9:41 a.m. Jan. 18, 2012
    " "Sin" is a religious construct. Nothing more, nothing less."

    You need to direct your comments to 'LDS Liberal'. He's the one who is concerned about Christ and His view on that subject.

    People are sent to prison because of behaviors that are illegal and which are included under the umbrella of "sin".

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 18, 2012 9:41 a.m.

    @Uncle Charles & Rifleman;

    "Sin" is a religious construct. Nothing more, nothing less. Conveniently, religions get to define "sin" for the followers of the religion, nobody else is obligated to adhere to any particular religion's definition of sin because their gods may or may not agree.

    You follow your god's dictates and allow other Americans to believe and live as they see fit. Religious Freedom, after all, means just that. I get to follow the dictates of my OWN conscience and religion, not your god's dictates, just as you get to follow the dictates of your god.

    I find it amazing that you all scream "religious freedom, religions freedom" every time we turn around, yet are completely unwilling to permit other's their own religious freedom (you want to make everybody adhere to your religion's tenets). The word for that is hypocrisy.

    My personal religious belief, which I am Constitutionally free to follow, says that marriage is between those doing the marrying, whomsoever they may be. The god I choose to follow doesn't care what sexual organs the participants in the marriage happen to have.

    Civil rights are about much more than just skin color. Much, much more. It's about equality.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 18, 2012 6:12 a.m.

    Re: LDS Liberal | 4:29 p.m. Jan. 17, 2012
    "The Christ I worship spent his entire ministry with the MOST wretched of sinners"

    The Christ you and I worship told the adulterous woman to "go, and sin no more"
    Nowhere in the scriptures does it suggest that Christ tolerated evil.

  • Uncle Charles Where freedom and liberty reign, utah
    Jan. 17, 2012 7:52 p.m.

    Dear Ranch: Homosexuality is only behavior, nothing more, nothing less.

    Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

    There is nothing you will ever be able to say to make the majority of the world believe that homosexuality is something to be embraced, accepted, condoned let alone codified in society as marriage.

    Your reference is to man and woman being married.

    @LDS Lib: Christ doesn't look with tolerance or acceptance on those committing sin. How sad you don't understand that simple principle.

    I'm actually with God and His plan; one of choice, not force. You choose to force everyone to do what you think they should do. You don't realize that revelation comes from top down, not from bottom up.

    Only you think you are better than God with your forcing everyone to do things according to your beliefs. Why is that?

    It's astounding that every single article turns into a pro-homosexual agenda thread. Blue started it with the very first comment.

    Homosexuality and abortion are 2 stains that our society will pay for forever. This is only a free nation as long as we worship God and obey His commandments. Get on board!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 17, 2012 4:40 p.m.

    @Uncle Charles;

    Homosexuality is NOT a behavior (just as heterosexuality is NOT a behavior).

    Marriage is NOT a behavior.

    Why must you ALWAYS focus on sex? You are welcome to "reject my argument", that in no way makes it invalid, it only means that YOU reject the argument.

    Marriage, according the the US Supreme Court and the United Nations IS a Civil Right.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 17, 2012 4:29 p.m.

    Uncle Charles | 10:37 a.m. Jan. 17, 2012
    Where Freedom And Liberty Reign, Utah
    This breaks no rules and responds to posts you've already allowed. Post it.

    @LDS Lib:
    I wonder how you rationalize away a verse of scripture where Christ says that he can't look upon sin with the least bit of allowance. Tolerant? Accepting of sin?

    =========================

    Wowzers - I wonder how you rationalize the Bible, The Book of Mormon, The D&C, the Pearl of Great Price, and Every Prophet who ever lived?!

    You pick one scripture to suit your agenda, used it completely out of context -- and then simply ignored EVERYTHING else.
    Sad -

    The Christ I worship spent his entire ministry with the MOST wretched of sinners - the lowest of the classes.

    Everything he ever said, taught, and did was directed entirely FOR the sinners -
    That is WHAT the Atonement is all about.
    Who would even need the Christ if there was NO sin?

    Tolerent? - Yes.
    Accepting? - Absolutely Yes!

    BTW - He also said, I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.'

    Are you better than God?

    Good Luck.
    I will pray for you.....

  • Uncle Charles Where freedom and liberty reign, utah
    Jan. 17, 2012 4:05 p.m.

    LDS Lib states, "The "Dream" we commemorate MLK with, is not castigating and lumping people together and judging, or discriminating, or intolerating them as a group....but to look at people as individuals.
    Who they are by their actions, not by Social/imaginary groupings."

    And yet this is exactly the castigating and lumping you do every single day.

    You end the same post with, "We've come a long way - to which we have reason to celebrate, but it is so sad to see 50 years later, that some still just don't get it....especially in this strong LDS community"

    Nice castigating and lumping of a group.

    You might want to work on that beam thingy before you worry about the mote thingy....

  • Uncle Charles Where freedom and liberty reign, utah
    Jan. 17, 2012 10:37 a.m.

    This breaks no rules and responds to posts you've already allowed. Post it.

    @Ranchhand: a behavior is not a civil right. I reject your foundation therefore your whole argument falls flat.

    @LDS Lib: Read the very first post on this thread. It was BLUE who injected the perversion of homosexuality into the discussion. The very first comment.

    I wonder how you rationalize away a verse of scripture where Christ says that he can't look upon sin with the least bit of allowance. Tolerant? Accepting of sin?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 17, 2012 10:31 a.m.

    I stand by my earlier comment....

    The "Dream" we commemorate MLK with, is not castigating and lumping people together and judging, or discriminating, or intolerating them as a group....but to look at people as individuals.
    Who they are by their actions, not by Social/imaginary groupings.

    People didn't hire others solely because they were black.
    People didn't serve others in resturants, solely because they were black.
    People were told they couldn't live in an area solely because they were black.

    The same pricipal then, still applies to any "group" today --
    Gay, Hispanic, Mulsim....

    We've come a long way - to which we have reason to celebrate,
    but it is so sad to see 50 years later, that some still just don't get it....especially in this strong LDS community....

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2012 10:10 a.m.

    @Hawkeye79

    His wife stands for gay marriage. Did she do so in the 60s? I highly doubt it. See the problem with predicting what Dr. King would say about gay marriage today is... he was alive in the 60s. The entire gay rights movement hadn't even started during his lifetime. His view on the matter after 40 more years being added to his life could be different than it was originally. The 60s were back in the days when electroshock therapy was used in an insane attempt to try and "cure" homosexuality. So really nobody can claim MLK is on their side because he doesn't have a history of supporting gay rights but he lived in the 60s and it can't be claimed he'd think that way today. What we can say is that over time Coretta has switched to supporting gay marriage.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 17, 2012 10:05 a.m.

    What, the other 364 days a year are not enough? There is not a single group out there who doesn't think that their civil rights are incomplete. How often do we hear from white, protestent, hetrosexual males that their rights are under fire.

    I can't understand why taking this day from those who endured lychings, slavery, being disallowed form riding in buses, holding jobs, living in segregated towns, eating in resturants, voting, a battle that took over 100 years to win, away from these people.

    Promote equal rights - that is fine with me. But give Dr. King his day, for his battle, for his sacrifice. Don't hijack his name.

    Create your own.

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    Jan. 17, 2012 9:49 a.m.

    @Ranch,

    It sounds like you disagree with Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s stance on the issue. You're certainly welcome to do so, but it is odd that you would then suggest that he would contradict his own statements on an issue.

    Frankly, it is only fair that historical figures be allowed to speak for themselves. They do not need people with an agenda speaking for them.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 17, 2012 7:23 a.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil;

    " What would have been so harmful to let this day be what it was intended ..."

    --

    Dr. King fought for Civil Rights. Many are still struggling to achieve their civil rights. It is entirely appropriate, imo, for ANY group that is being discriminated against, denied their civil rights, to be included in the celebration of Martin Luther King day.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 17, 2012 1:07 a.m.

    I really am quit liberally minded for an lds person, but it just is getting so draining to have every discussion degrade in a referendum on gay rights. What would have been so harmful to let this day be what it was intended rather than being prostituted by both sides.

    It is asd that both sides have so little respect for the man that they would abuse his name and day in this way. The need to promote ones own agenda seems supersedes the need to pay homage to a man who lost his life because one side refused to see the others point of view.

    Anyway , yet another day lost to the polarizing and ever annoying fight between two parties who refuse to even try to see others point of view. How little some things have changed.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 10:19 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    "You demean Mr. King when you group your desire to change "marriage" to include unions between people of the same sex. You demean everything that he stood for."

    Coretta Scott King supports gay marriage, so do you think his own wife demeans him?

    "When 2% of the population run amok every January 17th and try to hijack Martin Luther King, Jr. as a spokesman for gay "rights", they show only that gay rights activism cannot stand on its own merits."

    As opposed to this state's legislature that tried to hijack January 17th and combine it with a celebration of a manufacturer of the very type of instrument that killed MLK Jr?

    "if their sons and their daughters should be told that homosexual intercourse is proper, they would disagree."

    Any consentual intercourse that's in a marriage or at least a strong relationship is okay to me.

    "that homosexual "partners" should be able to adopt children and raise those children to become homosexual, they would disagree. "

    Become homosexual? Nah, they'd be born gay or straight. I agree, let them adopt.

    "the definition of marriage should mean the union of a man and a woman, they'd agree."

    Disagree. I'm straight btw.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 6:16 p.m.

    From Ted's Head says:

    "Convicted sex offenders upon their release do not have the same rights as the rest of us might. No matter how much they are in love, a 10 year old cannot marry a 30 year old. "

    ---

    However, a convicted sex offender CAN marry the person of his/her choice as long as that person is an adult.

    @Hawkeye79;

    Recognition that one is attracted to one's same sex doesn't mean that one can change; similar to the way one recognizes that one is attracted to the opposite sex.

    @J Thompson; The worst kind of hatred being shown is that shown by those who would discriminate against their fellow Americans.

    Martin Luther King Jr. fought for Civil Rights - for everybody. I doubt he'd have a problem with the continuance of his fight for more people.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 5:48 p.m.

    Mike Richards says:

    Maybe today would be a good day to add Isaiah 5:20 to the teachings of Martin Luther King, Jr.

    "Woe unto them that call evil good (Bigotry=evil), and good evil (tolerance=good); that put darkness for light (discrimination), and light for darkness (equality); that put bitter for sweet (hatred, intolerance), and sweet for bitter (love)!"

    ---

    Perhaps you should re-evaluate how you use that scripture.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 5:33 p.m.

    1. It was Mike Richards who began making MLK holiday and this thread all about Homosexual rights.

    2. It was MR and JThompson and LWhite who keep making equal rights synonomous with sex -- which it ISN'T.

    Why do the ultra-Cons obsess about sex?
    Why do the ultra-Cons obsess about other people's sex.

    Why can't the ultra-cons distinguish between people being treated fair and equal [as MLK - and this HOLIDAY are focused on] and turn theri entire attention, and everyone else's about sex?

    And I ask --
    Who is Tolerant, Accepting, Equal rights for ALL Americans [the way MLK and Christ would want it?]

    and who Pertetuates a Spirit of
    Equality for some Americans
    While Rejecting, Hating, Intolerant, and Limiting or No Rights at all for "Other" Americans?

    You make me sad....

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    Jan. 16, 2012 5:21 p.m.

    @spring street,

    Fair enough. Some people prefer to find out what a historical figure's opinion about a matter is by reading their actual words, while others prefer to imagine what their opinion might have been if they had lived in another era. Neither can be faulted for their approach, however historians will always side with the first, and with good reason. By imagining what "might have been," we can create all sorts of new histories!

    I prefer to allow historical figures to speak for themselves. If they haven't expressed their opinion about a matter, then it is unfair to put words in their mouth.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 4:52 p.m.

    @hawkeye79

    I also read the article you referenced the article talks at great length about Dr. King, his family and those around him. The article talks about how this letter in context of everything else we know about Dr. King cannot be used to surmise what his views on homosexuality where. I also searched Ebony for the original letter which would maybe give some context but there is no reference to it leaving one to wonder if the letter actually ever existed given everything else we know about him.

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    Jan. 16, 2012 4:40 p.m.

    @George,

    The selection I provided explains the context in which Rev. King expressed himself. He had been addressed by an anonymous boy who expressed that he was struggling with same-sex attraction. Given the letter he received, he chose to respond as indicated by the account.

    In what way do you feel the context is lacking? Would the message take on a different meaning if he had expressed himself on a certain day of the week?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 3:58 p.m.

    @L White
    its interesting that you think people fighting for civil rights have hijacked a civil rights leaders day and that you understand what was in Dr. Kings heart and mind then those that knew him best. You can believe homosexuality is a sin tell the end of days it does not change the fact that no where in the founding documents does it say that you must be a christian and follow gods commandments to have freedom in our country.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 3:51 p.m.

    @mike richards
    here is serious question Mike even if gays do make up only 2% of the population does it mean they are not entitled to rights? At what point does a group become large enough to deserve rights? 10%, 20%, 40%, 60$? the size of the group and how many people like them is irrelevant to civil rights, something Dr. King clearly understood in his time.

  • L White Springville, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 3:48 p.m.

    What a sad day in our history when homosexual activists have hijacked another person and another holiday to promote their rebel cause. They rebel against God. They rebel against the Son of God. Today, they even rebel against a baptist preacher who was killed to make us aware of God's commandment to live Christ's commandments. They tell us that their divient lives equate in some way to freedom. Oh how little they know about Christ or freedom. Freedom comes when we choose to live eternal laws. Homosexuality is not an eternal law. Those who chose to live it will never be free.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 3:46 p.m.

    @J thomas
    I just read thought this entire thread and did not see one hateful comment or threat of violence towards you or anyone else. disagreeing with you is not hate its a difference of opinion. Please stop trying to claim others are acting with hatred towards you it only demeans you.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Jan. 16, 2012 3:30 p.m.

    @Hawkeye79
    thanks for siting your source Hawkey it helps to but the comments in context, which of course show you are taking the comments wildly out of context of the article you quote. I also find it interesting that if you go to Ebony magazine you cannot find any such letter or a response by Dr. King to any such letter making it impossible to no the original context. Given the above I will stick withe the views of those that knew him best. thanks

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 3:19 p.m.

    There are all kinds of hatred. The worse kind is the kind being shown today. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a peaceful man who abhored violence, but gay activists have hijacked him and his day to spue hatred and intolerance towards people who love Christ and Christ's teachings. MLK was a baptist preacher. To think that he would abandon Christ to promote homosexual living is unthinkable. To think that he would pervert the family and abandon biblical teachings of marriage is unthikable. To think that he would have anything to do with today's gay eights movement is unthinkable.

    Anyone who has heard or read MLK knows that he loved God and that he tried to follow Christ's teaching - those teachings condemn homosexuality.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 3:07 p.m.

    Civil Rights, to me, are just the God-given rights of all people as spelled out in the Constitution, which come down, in general terms, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Gays, women and other particular designations of people do not have more rights than others, or special rights, and no one has the right to deprive anyone else of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. We are interested, in other words, in the "general" welfare not that of specific groups.

    We are specifically to be free to keep and bear arms, to possess the freedoms of speech, of the press and to worship God in our own way without let or hindrance. We have the rights to due process and to speedy trial by our peers, to be free in our persons. properties and effects.

    We have lost most of these rights to a greater of lesser extent and they ought to be restored, or rather government should cease and desist depriving us of what God has granted.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 2:57 p.m.

    Mike Richards, please stop promoting your hateful agenda. You don't know what Mr. King stood for and what kind of opinion he would have today. Please let the fallen rest in peace. Please stop disrespecting others.

    We do not know what Mr. King would have thought about this marriage issue. Had some right wing nutjob not killed him, perhaps we could have asked him in person?

    Lets embrace the good in others, reflect back upon the good that Mr. King helped motivate. Look at how much we have progressed since then.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 2:29 p.m.

    Hawkeye, what do you think would have happened to the nascent civil rights movement in 1958 if the emerging leader of that movement, in a national magazine, had made a statement of support for civil rights for a homosexual?

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    Jan. 16, 2012 2:21 p.m.

    MR says: "If you ask the right questions, 98% of the populace would speak out against homosexual activity."

    And he then goes on to say: "They claim that most Americans support gay marriage, when the Gallup poll shows that to be another lie."

    Says who?? You? So we're to believe you, someone who for some reason is rabidly anti-gay rights, over the words of MLK Jr.'s own wife? Over current national polls?

    Who do you think you are?

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Jan. 16, 2012 1:43 p.m.

    Honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. the right way. This is a national day of action just one day before the second anniversary of the infamous Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which held that corporations (as people entitled to the rights of the U.S. Constitution) can spend unregulated and undisclosed sums of money in order to influence elections. [There are] over 80 rallies at federal courthouses around the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.
    This election season is the first presidential race to feel the influence of Super PACs, political action committees that can receive unlimited money from individuals, corporations and unions. Some of these Super PACs have morphed into powerful outside organizations working solely on electing a presidential candidate of their choosing. While a campaign supporter can only donate $2500 directly to a presidential candidate, he or she can donate unlimited amounts of money to a Super PAC supporting the same candidate. In the case of Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the government could not limit political spending by corporations. Let the OWS protests begin harder this day.

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    Jan. 16, 2012 1:29 p.m.

    Perhaps the following will help contribute to this discussion (from John Blake, CNN):

    "Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was writing an advice column in 1958 for Ebony magazine when he received an unusual letter.

    'I am a boy,' an anonymous writer told King. 'But I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don't want my parents to know about me. What can I do?'

    In calm, pastoral tones, King told the boy that his problem wasn√Ęt uncommon, but required 'careful attention.'

    'The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,' King wrote. 'You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.'"

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 1:27 p.m.

    @mike richards
    So you are saying his wife was gay and has perverted his words and that we should take your word over hers?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 16, 2012 1:03 p.m.

    re: Isrred,

    That statement referred to INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. It had nothing to do with gay "marriage". Those who use it to promote gay "marriage", have twisted it out of context. If they will twist something that is so easy to check, what else will they twist out of context?

    They have overstated their numbers. They have claimed 10% of Americans were homosexual, when the facts show that between 2% and 3% are homosexual. ]

    They claim that most Americans support gay marriage, when the Gallup poll shows that to be another lie.

    Was Martin Luther King, Jr. a liar? Did he tell his followers to lie. Did he say that the end justifies the means? Of course not. Yet that is what gay activists are doing today. They are putting words in Dr. King's mouth. They are creating "facts" out of thin air.

    What a shame that Dr. King's words have been perverted to "mean" something that he had never intended them to mean.

    He was not a gay rights activist, no matter what the homosexual community says.

  • From Ted's Head Orem, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 12:55 p.m.

    Generally I respect the growth of the civil rights movement to encompass those who had previously been marginalized in our society due to bigotry and ignorance. Yet I do not see the term "civil rights" as being universally accepted in its definition and reach, nor do I anticipate a time when EVERY American is granted the civil rights they feel they are entitled to. We the people end up determining to a degree what is a right and what is not a right and there will always be disagreement on the subject. Is it time that no one should be discriminated against in regards to housing, employment, and education? It's easy to say yes, but what about illegal aliens / undocumented immigrants living within our borders? Convicted sex offenders upon their release do not have the same rights as the rest of us might. No matter how much they are in love, a 10 year old cannot marry a 30 year old. As a society we set boundaries on rights and it's a moving target at best.

  • isrred Logan, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 12:46 p.m.

    "Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all Gods children."
    May 1965 speech to the Negro American Labor Council.

  • isrred Logan, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 12:45 p.m.

    When any society says that I cannot marry a certain person, that society has cut off a segment of my freedom, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said in 1958.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 16, 2012 12:23 p.m.

    Maybe today would be a good day to add Isaiah 5:20 to the teachings of Martin Luther King, Jr.

    "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

    When we live in a time prophesied by a man living 700 years before Christ, the shouts of the 2% are put into perspective.

    Those who care about eternal truth know how accurate Isaiah was. He had a dream also. He saw things are they would become.

    Why would anyone think that eternal truth could be isolated from the way we must live our lives? MLK spoke for millions who had no voice of their own; men and woman who knew the difference between the lawlessness of their time and place and the freedom promised to every American. Today, there are those who use their freedom to preach lawlessness and rebellion against eternal laws. They fulfill Isaiah's prophecy. They, like the people who mocked Noah, will have their short season when they think that heaven and earth will be mocked, but Ether wrote: "Fools mock, but they shall mourn."

  • md Cache, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 12:22 p.m.

    When did this discussion fan out to be about gay rights?

    Of course gays should have rights, the same rights we all have. However, they don't deserve special protections and rights that the rest of us don't enjoy. For the same reason, reverse discrimination should not be allowed in the form of entitlements and affirmative action that penalize well qualified people from employment and opportunities that they have earned, because of their skin color.

    The shrill voices of the gays take every opportunity to let you know when they have been offended. Like they are daily.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Jan. 16, 2012 11:59 a.m.

    @Mike Richard's
    you know it used to be funny that you assumed anyone that spoke out in support of gay marriage must be gay but over the years it has just become sad to realize that no matter how many times the errors of your assumption and the research indicating the falsehood of your statements are pointed out to you that you will continue to perpetuate the same illogic. Have a nice day mike the world is changing all around you despite your denial of reality and you cannot not hide from it.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Jan. 16, 2012 11:53 a.m.

    Many thanks to the DN for this fitting tribute to Dr. King on this day set aside for honoring his sacrifice and leadership. He was not a perfect man, none of us are, but he stood for perfect ideals that should be in the hearts of every American. Today, almost fifty years after his famous speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, we are still fighting the battles he fought - perhaps not in the same ways but the battles still exist.

    The DN's call for civility in the fight for civil rights is absolutely appropriate and we should all take a lesson from Dr. King's example of peaceful protest and civil discourse as we continue to discuss issues that are important to our nation but that still divide us. Thank you DN.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 16, 2012 11:31 a.m.

    When 2% of the population run amok every January 17th and try to hijack Martin Luther King, Jr. as a spokesman for gay "rights", they show only that gay rights activism cannot stand on its own merits. The 98% of America who are not homosexual may put up with the 2%'s loud-mouthed rhetoric, but they do not agree that marriage should be redefined or that homosexual "couples" should have the right to adopted and raise children (and expose those children to a homosexual life-style).

    If you ask the right questions, 98% of the populace would speak out against homosexual activity.

    If you asked them if their sons and their daughters should be told that homosexual intercourse is proper, they would disagree.

    If you asked them if they thought that homosexual "partners" should be able to adopt children and raise those children to become homosexual, they would disagree.

    If you asked them if the definition of marriage should mean the union of a man and a woman, they would agree.

    Ask the right questions and you'll see that what the 2% is shouting about today is just hot air.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Jan. 16, 2012 11:23 a.m.

    I am pleased to be able to concur with this DN editorial. I wish I could do it more often.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 16, 2012 11:08 a.m.

    I think hijacking his day is not only wrong minded, but demeans the man.

    That said, I do thinkk MLK would stand for every persons right to be who they are, and from a legal aspect, would stand for rights of consenting adults to live freely, without reprocussion.

    At the same time, he was first and foremost a Baptist preacher of the mid 60s. As such, he would most likely preach against the homosexual lifestyle - asking those who listened to live chaste lives.

    What is legal, isn't always moral. It is perfectly consistent to fight for peoples legal rights, while also preaching to people to lives where the family is at its center.

    We can only guess what MLK might have said or done. But that is only guessing. What we do know is what he did say, what he did do, and how he lost his life in the quest for equality of all people, of al colors, and of all ethnic origin. That is what we should be focusing on. Not could have, should have, or would have, but what was.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Jan. 16, 2012 11:08 a.m.

    @j thomas
    the fact that you only view gays through their "sexual organs" tells much about why you just don't get it. It also explains why your would dismiss those closest to him for your own random beliefs about what he stood for rendering any further debate with you useless.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 11:03 a.m.

    JThompson: "Is nothing in America sacred?"

    Yes. Equal protection under the law for all Americans is sacred.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 10:51 a.m.

    We have avowed homosexuals telling us that the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday is a day that should be equated with how sex organs are used.

    Have they no shame?

    Is nothing in America sacred?

    The next thing we're going to hear is that unless the word "nice" is redefined, Santa Claus must be outlawed because he only takes gifts to "nice" boys and girls.

    There is NO civil right that guarantees the right to have homosexual intercourse. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a homosexual rights activist. Using his name to promote homosexual activity shows total lack of respect for him and for his life.

    I know and associate with gay men in my business dealings. Does that mean that I accept and promote their chosen lifestyle? I also know and associate with heterosexual men who are unfaithful to their wives. Does that mean that I accept and promote their chosen lifestyle?

    To infer that Martin Luther King, Jr. promoted gay activism because members of his team were gay is false and misleading. He never promoted gay "rights" - not once. There is NO public speech showing his advocacy for homosexual activity.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Jan. 16, 2012 10:24 a.m.

    @mike richards and j thompson
    I actually had the honor of meeting and talking with Mr. Kings son once we had a very lengthy discussion about many issues. He actually brought up the gay rights issues. he talked about people how happened to be gay within the civil rights movement that where very close to Dr. King that marched with him, preyed with him and often went to jail with him. His son was emphatic that Dr. King supported his friends then and that he has now doubt he would support the gay communities struggle for equality now. His wife is also on record stating that she to believes Dr. King would have supported the gay rights movement. So I hope you will excuse me if I take his son and wives word over yours as far as how Dr King would feel about the gay rights movement.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 10:00 a.m.

    @Mike Richards;

    "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

    Martin Luther King Jr.

    "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job. For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law."

    Coretta Scott King

    I suspect Mr. & Mrs. King had a similar set of values, which included equality for homosexuals as well as blacks.

    In any case, whatever your fictional god says and ordained was ordained by the followers of said fictional god. Nobody else is obligated to live by, or follow the "ordainments" of your fictional god.

    My own fictional god has mandated that "Bigotry is immoral". While you are not obligated to follow the dictates of my fictional god, one would think that common sense would indicate the same ideal.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 9:51 a.m.

    So this holiday and Martin Luther King, Jr. has become the symbol for gay activism, has he? What a shame! There is nothing in his life style that tells us that he was gay or that he championed gay rights. To use him and this holiday as just one more excuse to advocate gay rights degrades him and this holiday.

    He did things that no other American had ever been able to do. He talked of things that lift people. He did not preach things that degrade or demean.

    To think that he would be used today by gay activists to promote their agenda is an abomination to his name.

    Instead of twisting history, why not use this day and this man as a focal point on what it means to "have a dream" where whites and blacks get along without regard to the color of their skin?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 9:50 a.m.

    @Mike Richards | 7:33 a.m. Jan. 16, 2012
    South Jordan, Utah
    re: Blue,

    You demean Mr. King when you group your desire to change "marriage" to include unions between people of the same sex. You demean everything that he stood for.

    ==================

    On the contrary MR.

    His "Dream" never once talked about marriage.
    It talked about EQUALITY.

    It was specific toward a future when our Society would drop Bigotry and Intolerance of others based entirely on what group they belonged to, not the individual.

    You know - judging on the Content of ones Character.

    You completely missed it
    and can't seem to get past 1963.

    BTW - Speaking of marriage (since you brought it up)
    Inter-Racial Marriage was against the law in 1963.
    We've progressed past that one thanks to his Civil Rights movement.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 9:46 a.m.

    Mike,

    Seriously?

    You really believe that if Dr. King were alive today he would oppose equal civil rights for gays?

    Every word of King's sermons have been analyzed for anything resembling bigotry against gays. Nothing has been found.

    Do you remember the political climate of the 60's? I do. Social conservatives were claiming King was a communist and worse. King was intensely focused on moving his cause forward, and could not afford to dilute his message.

    Yet during this time one of his closest advisors was Bayard Rustin, who was openly gay. Rustin was the principle architect of the 1963 March on Washington, right down to scheduling King's "I have a dream' speech as the final event. Other of King's advisors said that allowing a gay man such a prominent position in the civil rights movement would provide their opponents with ammunition to use against them, but King refused to dissociate himself from "Brother Bayard."

    No, Mike, I think it is highly unlikely that if Dr. King were alive today that you'd be able to list him as an advocate for denying equality of civil rights to our gay brothers and sisters.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 9:20 a.m.

    To Mike Richards: You have no idea what MLK thought about gay rights, neither does anyone else. He never talked about it.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 9:07 a.m.

    Is the DN going to come out in support of the Civil Rights of GLBT Americans then? Judging from this article, it would appear to be the case.

    @Mike Richards;

    Please take a deeper look at Mr. King's history. One of his right-hand-men was a homosexual. Then read the statements by his wife Corretta Scott King, that Marriage is a Civil Right for homosexuals.

    Please educate yourself.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 16, 2012 7:33 a.m.

    re: Blue,

    You demean Mr. King when you group your desire to change "marriage" to include unions between people of the same sex. You demean everything that he stood for.

    He never advocated that those who followed him engage in homosexual relations.

    He never advocated redefining the word "marriage".

    His dream did not include two men or two women calling themselves a "family" and adopting children.

    His dream called for a man and a woman being able to raise their children in a world that did not judge them by the color of their skin.

    He did not dream of destroying society by destroying the most fundamental unit of society - the family. He did not dream of abandoning principles established and ordained by God.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 5:25 a.m.

    "But as King himself constantly reminded, the struggle for civil rights was not simply about race. It was, and is, about the rights a just nation confers upon all people, and enforces fairly for all people, regardless of cultural, physical or economic status."

    Precisely. Very well said.

    Does this mean you will rethink your position regarding the civil rights of gays?