"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.
@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.
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
@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.
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
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!
@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.
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.....
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....
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?
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
@Hawkeye79His 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.
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.
@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.
@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
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.
@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.
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.
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
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....
@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.
@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.
@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?
@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.
@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.
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.
@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.
@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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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 wasnât
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
@mike richards So you are saying his wife was gay and has perverted his
words and that we should take your word over hers?
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
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.
"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.
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.
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."
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.
@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.
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.
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.
I am pleased to be able to concur with this DN editorial. I wish I could do it
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.
@j thomasthe 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.
JThompson: "Is nothing in America sacred?"Yes. Equal
protection under the law for all Americans is sacred.
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.
@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.
@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 KingI 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.
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?
@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
itand 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.
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.
To Mike Richards: You have no idea what MLK thought about gay rights, neither
does anyone else. He never talked about it.
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.
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.
"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