A minor correction:
"mutually exclusive" means that you can be one OR the other, but NOT both simultaneously... I think you mean the opposite... that is, liberals and gay-rights activists are often one and the same.

Second... we have no direct evidence on MLK Jr.'s views on homosexuality because he never spoke publically, or wrote anything about it.
So... we are left with indirect and secondary sources of evidence... namely what his wife has said and his strong, close relationship with Bayard Rustin... there were many behind the scenes battles over Rustin's role, with many prominent Civil Rights leaders demanding that Rustin not be given such influential duties as organizing various marches... But Dr. King went to bat for him EVERY SINGLE TIME. I know you just right that off as Dr. King just showing love for the sinner, but I think that belittles the depth of their relationship.

MLK was a great man. But for God's sake people, its not like he was Jesus or something. I don't think this personality worship of him is especially healthy. Its similar to what Democrats like to do with JFK. As similar to JFK, its been far to long since his death to give a definitive yes or no regarding his stance on modern political policy.

Frankly, I'd like it if people starting publicizing the faults of these icons. Ghandi beat his wife. Did you know that? If I recall correctly, MLK was an adulterer. Does that invalidate his message? No, but it gives us a more realistic look at the man.

It is insane to think that anyone can somehow predict what the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's views would be today. Just as all of us are today, his experiences would affect the formulation of his opinions. Yet I would like to believe that he would follow the biblical view on the subject. My support would be his book ‘Strength to Love’, where he steps close to asserting the value of a socialist society for America because of the benefits to the disenfranchised blacks of America. This idea is quickly rejected because of the biblical principles which are incompatible with socialism and other non-capitalism or non democracy systems. While he would be against discrimination of anyone because of sexual orientation, I find it hard to believe he would endorse that lifestyle or rally for gay marriage rights.

I think what people often overlook when discussing whether King would have been supportive of gay "marriage" is that in focusing on that, they minimize the larger issue of discrimination of GLBT people and where King would have stood on that.

I never really gave much thought to what King would have thought about the issues, until I heard/read Coretta's comments on it. Given his committment to social justice, I think it makes sense to assume that he would not have been in support of measures to systematically deny a group of people access to privleges and benefits offered in this country.

But the bottom line is, we don't know!

Just as you think it is an unfair characterization and assumption of liberals to disconnect the fact that King was a minister, as a liberal/progressive Christian I think that it is an unfair assumption for more conservative Christians to assume that because he was a man of Christ that he would have been automatically opposed to gay "marriage" and gay-rights.

It never ceases to amaze me how on this one issue, social justice and Christianity become mutually exclusive entities.

It is interesting the rancor that this issue arouses, compared to say, gun control (there's something all the King's could envision MLK's stand on, were he with us). I wonder if Paul (Saul of Tarsus) were a 21st century evangelist, unmarrried as he was, if he would arouse suspicion. Ditto the apostles, who traveled alone in an almost exclusively-male setting. Being pro-life, I see handgun and rifle sales as a danger which may one day affect me or a loved one directly.

Interesting, being pro-life as well, I see no problems with the right to bear arms in the Constitution and fear only that our government will find a way to take it away from us. Because I see it as one method of making sure the government does not get too overbearing/dictatorship-ish.)

I don't think we should play the "what did MLK think" game...it diverts attention from the real issues.

The gay "marriage" supporters often ask "who does it hurt?" Gay "marriage" doesn't hurt anyone per se, but it does weaken society by attacking tradition which is a real issue.

Liberalism is attacking tradition in America in order to establish their own authoritarian regime. They'll attack everything from parental rights to Christmas in an effort to achieve their totalitarian goals.

Examples: Sweden instituted gay "marriage" and allowed no opposing opinion and currently has a Constituionally mandated ombudsman to protect gay rights.

A similar Constituionally mandated ombudsman to protect gay rightsis also in England.

Sarah of WA- I find it odd that you don't wish the "government to become too overbearing/dictatorish.." re-weapons (which, in the wrong hands, kill people), but are, I bet $1 million, in favor of government legislating not only the bedroom, but the wombs of women you will never meet. Big gov't is big gov't.

I need someone to explain exactly what "rights' gays are being denied. Everything that they are crying for can be solved with power of attorney and a will. I'm taken aback by "victims" groups that believe acceptance and blah, blah blah,and whatever can be legislated. You can't force people to love ya.

"Ditto the apostles, who traveled alone in an almost exclusively-male setting."

Nope. There were actually a number of women who followed Jesus and the Apostles around. The beginning of Luke 8 talks about this. Mary Magdelene is one of the most famous. They just don't get reported on much in the Gospels/Acts. Peter was also married and, apocryphally, he traveled with his wife on his missionary journeys.

On a different topic, I seemed to have trackbacked twice because of an error on my end. My apologizies and please delete one. Sorry about that.

Eric - the point is with the rights and privleges associated with marriage, why should one, who is a tax-paying citizen of this country have to jump through that hoop to get it. And, in some states now, not even a power of attorney can protect you or grant you those rights and privleges. Why do people seem to forget that marriage is a legal AND spiritual/religious institution?

Rights and Privleges of Marriage - http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&CONTENTID=14698&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

But again, the issue of gay rights does not stop and end with marriage, contrary to popular belief.

I think btrfly_locs reasoning is almost spot-on.

Something to ponder though: After Rev. King's victories were over, he became more and more radical.

Perhaps stung by the "house-negro" critisisms at that time, maybe even a little drunk with power (can you blame him?), he seem to change quite a bit.

Just speculation, but I could easily see him take the pro-"marriage" position.

GAO Report on benefits, rights, and privleges related to marital status

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

There are 1,138.

I said "almost exclusively.." Jeff. Everyone on this board is quite familiar with Maryum of Magdala. The twelve, as you know, were males. And their ties w/ her were "platonic".

My point is that would cause eyebrows to raise today (I'm a man, I know what all-male settings, even of two roomies, can spur on the rumor mill, whereas female roomates evoke nary a stir).

I find it amazing that gay-right activists have the audacity to equate "gay-rights" with "civil-rights." To even suggest that their plight is equal to the plight of African Americans is just a mockery of everything great leaders like MLK has brought about. It offends me that someone's choice in sexual preference is even given the sampe platform as someone's racial decent. If I were an African American I would be very indignant and feel that my rights are now being minimized.

Michael- sexual preference is not a choice, any more than the human range of predilections for tall or short people, introvertedness/extrovertedness,for salts or sweets, or for loud or soft music is a choice. People are not created in extremes (i.e.- "homogenial" or "hetero", w/ nothing in between), any more than we are all obese or puny. For more on the matter, read the American Psychological Ass'n's many papers on the broad range of human sexual traits (not acted on, which is different, but traits whether suppressed or not), Gavin Arthur's "The Circle of Sex", Alfred Kinsey's seven "types", and Magnus Hirschfled or Havelock Ellis. Humans would not "choose" to be part of a group which has been historically discriminated against (there is homogeniality in nature beyond humans, e.g. bonobo chimps, and even hamsters under certain circumstances)

Bijan, should we really accept anything Alfred Kinsey has to say about sexual matters?

Jeff the Baptist wrote "MLK was a great man. But for God's sake people, its not like he was Jesus or something."

Umm, Jeff, which "people" are you referring to?

To all who think we shouldn't be paying attention to the King legacy debate. I disagree. And trust me, I'm the last one to herald King as a savior, but there is a strategic effort to equate this whole shennigan with the Civil Rights Movement and that is bad news. Period. Many historians have noted that the one child who embodies King's convictions and passion the most is not Dexter or the other King children, it's Bernice. And I think it telling that she is at a rift with many familiy members due to this issue.

I'm sorry, but Coretta has been picked up as a tool of Julian Bond and Jesse Jackson. She's said some off stuff throughout the years. I don't necessarily equate the fact that she's in favor of this with the reality that King would have been, but like it's been said. We just don't know.

Liberals however, think they own the King legacy and that's really what I'm addressing here.

Eric: you're right to ask that question. Unfortunately, "Gay Rights" has been translated to mean same-sex unions at this present time. The reality is that I believe King would have definitely been in opposition to bigotry and other forms of ill-mannered behavior that's been displayed towards homosexuals in this country.

Marriage however, is an entirely different issue.

But the big issue here is the fact that blacks who oppose Civil Rights comparisons do so because they believe that skin color is not a choice, sexual orientation is. And no, don't go off talking about how people are born gay, etc. etc., that's not the direction I want this conversation to go.

I cited several others who preceded Kinsey in their research. People do not choose their preference for blue over yellow, or for muscular bodies over lean ones. And as for extremes, almost nothing in nature is limited to extremes- not temperatures, not complexions, not size, not taste for foods, not vocal tones. Nature operates in diversity, not "either/or" or even "right/wrong". Men are even born w/ nipples, though they do not nurse.

Eric you're right, the sick and demented individual that is Kinsey should be put up there next to Freud.

Okie dokie. Let me pull the reigns on this horse before it goes farther. Let's not get into a debate on whether or not sexual orientation is a choice please. I'll address that topic at a later date as I believe it be more theological than scientific, although both prove what I know to be true.

Anyway, take that one up in your own space s'il vous plait. Merci.

Bijan, Shut that crap up! Ambra stated that the conversation was not going that route yet you had to get the last word to push that agenda. Stay on topic please Dr. King and his association to the liberal left...

Like King (and us all), Freud was not perfect. We do, however, owe him a large debt as he was the first psychoanalyst (helping lead mankind out of the world or phrenology, lobotomies, and the notion than mental health is 100% organic),the first to articulate the ego, the effects of early childhood abuse/treatment, the significance of dreams, and other then-uncharted examination of the subconscious. Millions of dieters, smokers, alcoholics, therapists,and abused individuals have benefited.

Ok, so I shouldn't have incited others by bringing up the topic of choice. I'm sure both sides can provide convincing arguments for their belief; yet the fact remains, I still think it's offensive that gay-rights are being equated with "civil-rights." I think this is a far cry from what MLK intended. It seems to be an incredible stretch to use MLK's influence to support gay-rights.

I knew Martin Luther King was leaning socialist towards the end of his life, but I didn’t know he actually received a Margaret Sanager Award back in 1966. See http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ABOUT/history/mlking2.html
——Excerpt of speech delivered by Coretta King on behalf of MLK——–
There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist – a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions.

Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.
———————————–

Even sadder is the followup letter written by MLK saying that he will treasure this award more than most. I guess he was one of those suckas that bought and preached Sanger/Satan’s strategy to exterminate millions of negro babies. Is that the pinnacle of self hate or what? :(

Either MLK was a bamboozler that got snuffed out before he could be exposed, thus preserving the “civil rights christian activist” legacy. Or like Jesse and other preachermen who started out humble that were later won over to the Dark Side by fame and the constant sweet nothings whispered in their ear by Satan.

Also see www.klannedparenthood.org

Bijan, being pro-life, I imagine knives are next on your list of dangerous items to be regulated? Perhaps you'll find the UK model to be more to your liking.

There it is illegal to resist and cause harm to a mugger, rapist or what have you. Guns are already pretty much outlawed, hence pretty much only the law & outlaws have/use them. With the gun issue safely put away, activists are now focusing on knives. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,1372631,00.html

Granted that this is essentially about carrying a knife, nevertheless, one can be assured that should someone defend themselves with a knife, the law won't hesitate to throw the book at them to ensure that the victim gets punished serverely. Official Brit policy is to lay back, enjoy it and wait for the law to take care of the pieces.

But don't dare raise a finger or your voice to protect yourself, after all, the baddies are such fragile sensitive creatures and may end up doing something they didn't intend on doing.

It's a sane, sane world.

Thanks Andy. Fifth commandment, dude. And thanks for the decorum simpleminded.

Hmmm.

Alright ya'll. Don't make me break out the switch (that's the rod or spanking utensil for the civilized).

No need to be telling folks to shut up. It's all civil around here--usually.

In any case, Andy you bring up good points. There was a lot about Dr. King that was questionable. But I will say this. I don't trust Margaret Sanger or Planned Parenthood as far as I could throw them and when I was doing research about Sanger a few years ago, it seemed to me like presenting King the award was more self-serving and strategic on their part. After all, they have milked that fact for all it's worth in their oncgoing quest to prove that they are not a racist organization.

I also have reason to believe that much like today, the expose on Sanger's little Eugenics covery-op had yet to take place. They did much of their work under the banner of "helping the race" and social activisism. I don't think we know the full story there.

More research to be done on this in the future, but not by me....ha.

Ambra, I realize of course that it is not above some organizations to present an award for self-promotion. What threw me off was the apparent effusiveness in accepting the award. Then again, it has been claimed that Coretta was not above "going behind" MLK's back. MLK's thots are further occulded given that Jesse was an eloquent speaker against abortion even in the 70s.

This is probably yet another case of we'll never know the real story here on earth.

Bijan, forgive me for not being clear. I only meant "you" to apply to when I said, 'I imagine knives are next on your list of dangerous items to be regulated? Perhaps you'll find the UK model to be more to your liking.',

As in, is this something you'd like to see take place in the US? If so, where do we stop?

Pencil sharpeners are being banned because a student took one apart and used the blade to slash a fellow student. Will cricket bats be banned, since it could be used to bludgeon someone?

At this rate, I'd imagine even making a fist would be deemed illegal since one could use it to slug someone. For sure words/thots are banned since words 'will' hurt.

How about simply punishing someone for the act of violence, method, tool or apparatus notwithstanding?

All other "you"s were intended to be from the victim's POV vis a vis official policy. The govt's attitude to victims who defend themselves has been well documented. My point was that we have a sad situation when a victim is victimized a second time for daring to defend themself.

A propos my point about the depth of King's relationship with Bayard Rustin, www.salon.com
just posted an article by Earl Ofari Hutchinson
on this very topic.