What did MLK think about Gays? - Polidicks

[img]http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/img/3.0/global/header/hdr-main.gif[/img] [release] [h2]What did MLK think about gay people?[/h2] [i]By [b]John Blake[/b], CNN[/i] (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’t 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.” We know what King thought about race, poverty and war. But what was his attitude toward gay people, and if he was alive today would he see the gay rights movement as another stage of the civil rights movement? That’s not the type of question most people will consider on this Monday as the nation celebrates King’s national holiday. Yet the debate over King’s stance toward gay rights has long divided his family and followers. That debate is poised to go public again because of the upcoming release of two potentially explosive books, one of which examines King’s close relationship with an openly gay civil rights leader, Bayard Rustin. The author of both books says King’s stance on gay rights is unclear because the Ebony advice column may be the only public exchange on record where he touches on the morality of homosexuality. Yet King would have been a champion of gay rights today because of his view of Christianity, says Michael Long, author of, “I Must Resist: Bayard Rustin’s Life in Letters,” who shared the story of King’s Ebony letter. “Dr. King never publicly welcomed gays at the front gate of his beloved community. But he did leave behind a key for them - his belief that each person is sacred, free and equal to all to others,” says Long, also author of the upcoming “Keeping it straight? Martin Luther King, Jr., Homosexuality, and Gay Rights.” [b]Did King’s dream include gay people?[/b] One person close to King, though, would disagree. Rev. Bernice King led a march to her father’s graveside in 2005 while calling for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. She was joined by Bishop Eddie Long, senior pastor of New Birth Missionary Church in Georgia, where she served as an elder at the time. Long, who recently settled out of court with four young men who filed lawsuits claiming he coerced them into sexual relationships, publicly condemned homosexuality. King did not answer an interview request, but she has spoken publicly about her views. During a speech at a church meeting in New Zealand, she said her father “did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage.” Yet her mother, Coretta Scott King, was a vocal supporter of gay rights. One of her closest aides was gay. She also invoked her husband’s dream. Ravi Perry, a political science professor at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, said King’s widow once said in a public speech that everyone who believed in her husband’s dream should “make room at the table of brother and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.” There is no private or public record of King condemning gay people, Perry says. Even the FBI’s surveillance of King’s private phone conversations didn’t turn up any moment where King disparaged gay people, she says. “If Dr. King were anti-gay, there would likely be a sermon, a speech, a recording of some kind indicating such,” she says. “And knowing how closely his phones were tapped; surely there would be a record of such statements.” Those who say King did not condemn gays and would have supported gay rights today point to King’s theology. Though King was a Christian minister, he didn’t embrace a literal reading of the Bible that condemns homosexuality, some historians say. King’s vision of the Beloved Community – his biblical-rooted vision of humanity transcending its racial and religious differences – expanded people’s rights, not restricted them, they say. Rev. C.T. Vivian, who worked with King at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, says King would have championed gay rights today. “Martin was a theologian,” Vivian says. “Martin starts with the fact that God loves everybody, and all men and all women were created by God. He based his whole philosophy on God’s love for all people.” [b]King’s relationship with ‘Brother Bayard’[/b] Those who say King would have championed gay rights also point to King’s treatment of one of the movement’s most important leaders, Bayard Rustin. Rustin was an openly gay civil rights leader who is widely credited with organizing the 1963 March on Washington. He was an organizational genius, the man who insisted that King speak last on the program, giving his “I Have a Dream” speech the resonance it would not have had otherwise, says Jerald Podair, author of “Bayard Rustin: American Dreamer.” “He was the kind of guy who could tell you how many portable toilets you needed for 250,000 people in a demonstration," Podair says. “He was a details guy. King needed him for that march.” But Rustin could do more than arrange a demonstration. He was also a formidable thinker and debater. He was born to a 15-year-old single mother and never graduated from college. The movement was led by intellectual heavyweights like King, but even among them, Rustin stood out, Podair says. He read everything and was a visionary. One aide to President Lyndon Johnson described him as one of the five smartest men in America, says Podair, a history professor at Lawrence University in Appleton, Wisconsin. “People who heard him speak were transfixed,” Podair says. Rustin became one of the movement’s most eloquent defenders of its nonviolent philosophy, says Saladin Ambar, a political scientist at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. “He was one of the few individuals not afraid to debate with Malcolm X in public,” Ambar says. “Rustin more than held his own and really challenged Malcolm to push his thinking.” Rustin was a special assistant to King and once headed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. During the planning of the March on Washington, King resisted calls to jettison Rustin because he was gay, Podair says. King, though, didn’t speak out on behalf of gay rights because he was doing all he could to hold the movement together, historians say. He had to constantly fend off rumors that the movement was infiltrated by communists. He was also criticized for expanding the movement to take on poverty and oppose the Vietnam War. “The movement superseded any discussion of gay rights,” Ambar says. “King was dedicated to the cause at hand.” With all that was going on, King couldn’t afford to wage a public campaign defending Rustin’s homosexuality, says Vivian, a SCLC colleague of King’s. “Any employee that would employ a gay person at the time who was outwardly gay would have problems,” Vivian says. “I don’t care if you were the president of the Untied Sates, you would have trouble doing that.” After the 1963 March on Washington, Rustin remained as King’s adviser. The two, however, drifted apart when King became more radical during the last three years of his life, says Adair, Rustin’s biographer. When Rustin died in 1987, he was starting to receive attention from gay and lesbian activists who linked civil rights with gay rights, Podair says. Rustin was a late convert to their cause. “He never put it [homosexuality] front and center,” Podair says. “He never politicized it until the end of his life. He didn’t want to make a big deal out of it.” It’s no longer unusual today for gay and lesbian activists to draw parallels between their struggles and King’s legacy. Vivian, King’s SCLC colleague, says the comparison is apt. “There was a time when black people were afraid to be themselves among white people,” he says. “You had to fit a stereotype in order to be accepted. They’re going through the same thing but now they feel better about themselves.” Vivian says the movement shouldn’t be limited to race. “As we were freeing up black people, we’re freeing up the whole society.” Long, author of the upcoming books on King and Rustin, says King’s vision transcended his personal limitations. Maybe he could have said more to that anonymous boy who wrote him at Ebony. But he did leave him a key to the Beloved Community– even if he didn’t realize it at the time, Long says. Now, Long says, it’s up to those who claim King today to use that key. “A turn of that key and a gentle push on the gate, swinging it wide open so everyone can enter into the Beloved Community,” he says. “That’s the best way to advance the legacy of Martin Luther King.” [/release] [img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/01/13/t1larg.mlk.jpg[/img] [url=http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/what-did-mlk-think-about-gay-people/]Source[/url]

yep and elements of the gay community are transphobic and racist no one is this perfect intersectional being of justice

Uhh it was the 1960s... nobody knew what a gay person was Oh boy the autists are taking this literally The autists are out and they're mad

So basically he was too busy with race to work on homosexuality? I don't see the problem here, he has to have priorities.

even though i can sympathize with mlk's position and i agree with you guys it sure is apologist in here

Don't see anything wrong with it, after all, you sometimes must focus on the bigger current issue, black rights. 1960's wasn't the time for gay rights at all, that was the time for black rights. Gay rights would just be way too early, and I honestly can't see that many HUGE gay rights activists in 1960's because that just doesn't seem likely at all, not the mindset and not the right time. Now-a-days however, we have huge gay rights activists popping up everywhere.

[QUOTE=Swagger420;34247859]Uhh it was the 1960s... nobody knew what a gay person was[/QUOTE] I don't hate gays or blacks look at me! Weeeeee!

[QUOTE=Swagger420;34247859]Uhh it was the 1960s... nobody knew what a gay person was[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmqNiFJyI28[/media]

there's a good reason to hate everyone even MLK Or you could just forgive him as naive and a product of his time, but whatever.

There wasn't a lot of (non junk) science done on the human brain yet, and what was available wasn't exactly on the front page of reddit. It was culturally accepted at the time that homosexuality was a practice/lifestyle choice, and something to look down on. MLK had massive and glaring personality flaws, but that just serves to illustrate that he's human. He's still a hero.

Why does it matter? I mean, gay rights are great, and we should fight for them, but just because someone did some great things doesn't mean they were an all round paragon of each of our modern virtues, and unless he was particularly homophobic for his time it doesn't really matter.

[QUOTE=Swagger420;34247859]Uhh it was the 1960s... nobody knew what a gay person was[/QUOTE] They did, they just thought they could shoot lazer beams out of their eyes and drank little boy blood.

Honestly very few people in that time openly advocated gay rights, although from a modern perspective his stance does seem hypocritical

It's difficult to judge someone from that far back and compare them to the standards we have today.

he didn't bow down and fight for gay rights! scum of the earth.

Why are you guys downplaying the idea of him being a homophobe? And why does it matter so much if he is or not? And isn't there the possibility that he changed his mind about gay rights later in his life, even if he wrote that letter early on? [QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;34248264]he didn't bow down and fight for gay rights! scum of the earth.[/QUOTE] Are you saying fighting for human rights is bowing down to homosexuals? Sure he had more of a following by fighting for one rights issue, but your phrasing was terrible.

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;34247938][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmqNiFJyI28[/media][/QUOTE] This has to be a video that was mislabeled by some angry youtuber as a homosexual education video. It seems much more like any average video you'd show kids to stay away from strangers. Hell, the word is only mentioned once in the entire thing.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;34248362]This has to be a video that was mislabeled by some angry youtuber as a homosexual education video. It seems much more like any average video you'd show kids to stay away from strangers.[/QUOTE] Nope. They explicitly refer to the apparent paedophile as "the homosexual" at several points.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;34248362]This has to be a video that was mislabeled by some angry youtuber as a homosexual education video. It seems much more like any average video you'd show kids to stay away from strangers. Hell, the word is only mentioned once in the entire thing.[/QUOTE] You honestly don't think that's a homophobic video?

[QUOTE=Swagger420;34247859]People don't get that my dumb joke is a joke, they must be autistic.[/QUOTE] I hate that autism is the best retort you can come up with.

[QUOTE=Man in the Moon;34248437]I hate that autism is the best retort you can come up with.[/QUOTE] It wasn't a joke... [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] autist [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Threadshitting" - Autumn))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Swagger420;34248555]It wasn't a joke... [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] autist[/QUOTE] :frog:

You're just mad cause i got more money than you

You could look at any person who's been described as a champion of freedom from any millennia earlier than 1960s and call them bad because they didn't support gay marriage. And it'd be equally pointless.

[QUOTE=Swagger420;34247859]Uhh it was the 1960s... nobody knew what a gay person was Oh boy the [b]autists[/b] are taking this literally The [b]autists[/b] are out and they're mad[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Swagger420;34248555]It wasn't a joke... [editline]16th January 2012[/editline] [b]autist[/b][/QUOTE] Somebody is projecting.

The way this article and the facts paint it, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be against gay rights. Either way he's still a fantastic example of a human being and a fantastic example of a Christian.

[QUOTE=Spooter;34249136]The way this article and the facts paint it, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be against gay rights. Either way he's still a fantastic example of a human being and a fantastic example of a [b]Christian[/b][/QUOTE] You don't need this. Why should his religious preference be of note?

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;34249204]You don't need this. Why should his religious preference be of note?[/QUOTE] Because it was central to his beliefs, his motivations, and the way he conducted the movement. It feels to me like there are people who need reminded that Religion isn't by it's nature a bad thing.

[QUOTE=J!NX;34247925]Don't see anything wrong with it, after all, you sometimes must focus on the bigger current issue, black rights. 1960's wasn't the time for gay rights at all, that was the time for black rights. Gay rights would just be way too early, and I honestly can't see that many HUGE gay rights activists in 1960's because that just doesn't seem likely at all, not the mindset and not the right time. Now-a-days however, we have huge gay rights activists popping up everywhere.[/QUOTE] Did nobody read the first few paragraphs? He described homosexuality as a problem. I don't know where people are coming up with the argument that he didn't fight for gay rights. He did the opposite, and called homosexuality a problem.

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;34248264]he didn't bow down and fight for gay rights! scum of the earth.[/QUOTE] oh look, spessmehren's majority status feels threatened, again.