Posts Tagged ‘homosexuals’

What did MLK think about gay people?

Monday, January 16th, 2012
(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.”

Did King’s dream include gay people?

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.”

King’s relationship with ‘Brother Bayard’

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.”

Phillip Kayser, Ron Paul Endorser, Called For Executing Homosexuals Under ‘Biblical Law’

Thursday, December 29th, 2011

UPDATE: The endorsement no longer appears on Paul’s website, according to TPM. Here is a screenshot of the endorsement via blogger Doug Mataconis.


Ron Paul’s campaign is touting the endorsement of Phillip G. Kayser, an Iowa pastor who believes in imposing the death penalty on homosexuals, reports Talking Points Memo.

“We welcome Rev. Kayser’s endorsement and the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs,” said Paul’s Iowa chairman, Drew Ivers, in a recent press release on Paul’s campaign website.

“Difficulty in implementing Biblical law does not make non-Biblical penology just,” wrote Kayser in a recent pamphlet. “But as we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative.” Kayser added that homosexuals could be prosecuted only after the law was enacted.

TPM adds that Paul’s Iowa state director, Mike Heath, led the Christian Civic League of Maine. In that position, he called on his supporters in 2004 to email him with information on the sexual orientation of the state’s political leaders.

Paul has had one of the more pro-gay rights records among Republicans in Congress. He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment and for the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. However, he still supports the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and allows states not to recognize other states’ same-sex marriages. “Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected,” he said in February.

Eric Dondero, a former senior aide to Paul, recently explained Paul’s stance on gay rights in light of racist and homophobic newsletters written under his name in the 1980s and 90s that have resurfaced. “He is not all bigoted towards homosexuals. He supports their rights to do whatever they please in their private lives,” he wrote. “He is however, personally uncomfortable around homosexuals, no different from a lot of older folks of his era.”

Gay rights activist and author Dan Savage recently defended Paul. “And Ron may not like gay people, and may not want to hang out with us or use our toilets, but he’s content to leave us the f*** alone and recognizes that gay citizens are entitled to the same rights as all other citizens,” he said in Slate. “[Rick] Santorum, on the other hand, believes that his bigotry must be given the force of law. That’s an important difference.”

It’s 14 years jail term for homosexual marriages

Thursday, December 1st, 2011


THE Senate, yesterday, passed the Same Sex Marriage bill prohibiting all marriages between man and man and between woman and woman.

The bill sponsored by Senator Magnus Abe, PDP, Rivers, prescribes 14 years jail term for anybody convicted of contracting marriage between same sex.

It also prescribed 10 years for anybody convicted of aiding and abetting the contraction of same sex marriage in Nigeria and also nullifies certificate of same sex marriage contracted outside the shores of Nigeria. The new law also kicked against the operation of gay clubs in Nigeria as it provides for 10 years jail term without option of fine for anybody guilty of operating gay club within the country.

Senate President, David Mark, in his remark after the passage of the law stressed that the practice of same sex marriage violates Nigeria’s traditions and customs.

He said the Senate will not be cowed into passing laws that go against the belief of the country by western countries that threatened to stop aids to Nigeria on account of the Senate outlawing homosexuals and lesbianism in Nigeria.

Mark said: “If there is any country that wants to stop giving us aid because we want to pass the bill on same sex, that country can go ahead. We are a sovereign nation and we have the rights to decide for ourselves because no country can interfere in the way we run our country. Same sex marriage is against our own culture and tradition and against our beliefs.”

Section 3 of the bill reads: “Only marriage contracted between a man and a woman either under Islamic law, Customary law or Marriage Act is recognized as valid in Nigeria.”

Registration of gay clubs

Section 4 (1) which kicks against gay clubs reads: “The registration of gay clubs, societies and organizations; their sustenance, processions and meetings are hereby prohibited. (2) The public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly is hereby prohibited.”

Section 1 (2) and (3) reads: “A marriage contract or civil union entered into between persons of same sex is invalid and shall not be recognized as entitled to the benefits of a valid marriage. (3) A marriage contract or civil union entered into between persons of same sex by virtue of a certificate issued by a foreign country shall be void in Nigeria, and any benefits accruing there from by virtue of certificate shall not be enforced by any court in Nigeria.”

The law also banned solemnization of same sex marriage in churches and mosques in Nigeria. Section 2 (1) of the bill provides: “Marriage or civil union entered into between persons of same sex by virtue of a certificate issued by a foreign country shall be void in Nigeria and any benefits accruing there from by virtue of the certificate shall not be enforced.”

Section 5 (1)(2)(3) which stipulates the penalties reads: “Persons who entered into same sex marriage contract or civil union commit an offence and are each liable on conviction to a term of 10 years imprisonment.

“(2) Any person who registers, operate or participates in gay clubs, societies and organization or directly or indirectly make public show of same amorous relationship in Nigeria commits an offence and shall each be liable on conviction to a term of 10 years imprisonment.

“(3)Any person or group or persons that witness, abet and aids the solemnization of a same sex marriage or civil sustenance of gay clubs, societies, organization, process of meeting in Nigeria commits an offence and shall be liable to conviction to a term of 10 years imprisonment.”

65-year-old man who feared homosexuals convicted of murdering 79-year-old in Vancouver

Tuesday, November 29th, 2011

Vancouver Sun

A 65-year-old man has been convicted of murdering a 79-year-old man, who was stabbed to death at a hotel in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside in 2004.

“They say I stabbed him 130 times,” the killer, George Phillip Holt, said in an interview with The Vancouver Sun last Friday during a break in his murder trial.

Holt, who was on bail at the time and sitting in a wheelchair outside the Vancouver Law Courts, said he had no memory of committing the murder.

He said the victim, Reginald Haynes, had asked Holt to perform oral sex, offering to pay Holt $50.

Holt said he “lost it.”

“I killed the guy by accident,” Holt said.

The killer made the comments before the jury reached its verdict, convicting Holt guilty of second-degree murder at about 8:30 p.m. last Friday night.

When he spoke to The Sun, he said he expected to be found guilty of murder and receive a lengthy prison sentence.

Seven of the 12 jurors recommended that Holt should serve at least 15 years before he is eligible for parole, one juror recommended Holt serve 20 years, two recommended he serve the minimum 10 years and two left it up to the judge.

Second-degree murder carries a mandatory life sentence with no parole for 10 to 25 years.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Gail Dickson will hear sentencing submissions Friday at 2 p.m.

The trial judge will decide whether the nature of the crime and Holt’s background would warrant an increased parole ineligibility period.

The judge will also have to consider the advanced age of the killer.

The trial heard evidence that Holt and Haynes were both living at the Columbia Hotel at the time of the Aug. 27, 2004 murder, which went unsolved for years.

Holt’s blood was found in Haynes’ room, but he denied being involved, blaming the crime on two other men.

After the case stalled, Vancouver police detectives decided to dust off the file and finally solved it in 2009, when Holt was arrested at his home in New Westminster.

At trial, expert pathologist Dr. Charles Lee testified that the victim suffered from approximately 130 stab wounds and cutting injuries.

Holt testified that he was high on cocaine at the time Haynes asked him to perform oral sex.

“I started to lose it because I have a fear of homosexuals,” the killer told the jury.

He testified he didn’t remember stabbing him.

The Crown called as witnesses the two men whom Holt had initially blamed for the murder. Both denied any involvement.

The men voluntarily provided DNA samples to police in 2009, which cleared them as suspects.

The jury rejected Holt’s defence, which was a combination of lack of intent due to cocaine intoxication and provocation.

Homosexuals Aggressively Push Agenda in Federal Government

Tuesday, November 29th, 2011


The death of longtime homosexual activist Frank Kameny offered an opportunity for “LGBT” professionals to gather and celebrate their increasing presence in the federal government, as well as to insist that more be done to advance their interests.

On a mid-November evening, a group of D.C. bureaucrats gathered at the Cannon House Office Building to remember the “gay rights pioneer,” who, reported the Associated Press, “is credited with staging the first gay rights protests in front of the White House and Philadelphia’s Independence Hall. He had been fired from his job as a government astronomer for being gay. Kameny took that case to the Supreme Court 50 years ago.”

John Berry, director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, told the gathering — which included White House staffers, Congressmen, and a Yale Law School professor — that Kameny was responsible for blazing the trail “that I and countless others followed into public service.” Berry, who in 2009 became the Obama administration’s highest level homosexual appointee, told the assembled group that Kameny’s “unrelenting and unceasing fight for gay rights enabled other Americans to step out of the closet and into the full light of equality. But most importantly, his long battle and eventual triumphs show the miracles that one person wrought upon the world.”

While Berry may be one of the most high-profile homosexuals serving in the Obama administration, he is by no means the only one. According to the Washington Post, no less than 200 “LGBT presidential appointees serve under President Obama, among them the first two who are openly transgender.” Additionally, thanks to Obama’s aggressive efforts on their behalf, “gay men and lesbians can serve openly in the armed forces. Intrusive questions about sex lives have been purged from security-clearance vettings.”

In fact, according to a 2010 survey by the National Center for Marriage and Family Research (NCMFR), Washington, D.C. has the most same-sex-couple households in the nation, representing a hefty 31 percent of the city’s unmarried households. With a high percentage of those same-sex couples having bachelor’s degrees (compared to their heterosexual counterparts) and trending toward professional careers, it is a given that this influx of “gay” workers to D.C. has filled an increasing number of positions in the burgeoning federal government — which, at some two million individuals, is the nation’s largest employer.

While such obstacles as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” have hindered homosexual federal employees full access to the benefits afforded traditional married couples, the Obama administration has conducted a high-profile campaign to change that. Besides leading the campaign that repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and gave homosexuals nearly unfettered access to even the most sensitive military positions, Obama officials have been hard at work chipping away “at one of the biggest obstacles to equality for same-sex partners: the lack of access to more than 1,100 benefits that come with marriage,” reported the Washington Post. “LGBT civil servants can now take leave to care for sick partners and visit them in the hospital; gay couples can get relocation benefits and child-care services. Transgender federal employees are protected by anti-discrimination laws.”

Nonetheless, DOMA, which defines marriage in federal business as only between a man and a woman, blocks “gay” employees from receiving full benefits for their homosexual partners. This is particularly galling as they witness private corporations bending over backward to offer spousal benefits to their homosexual employees.

According to the most recent Corporate Equality Index, an annual survey of “gay friendly” companies put together by the pro-homosexual Human Rights Campaign, 337 companies (of 615 total) received 100 percent positive ratings for having employment policies that favor homosexuals and their partners. Collectively, those companies account for 8.3 million full-time employees and include such giants as Coca-Cola, AT&T, Delta Airlines, Land O’Lakes, Kellogg, Hershey, Campbell’s Soup, Starbucks, Ford, General Motors, Apple, and Microsoft.

In order to achieve a perfect score on the index, reported Baptist Press News, “companies had to meet six standards, including: 1) offering diversity training covering sexual orientation and gender identity, 2) having a non-discrimination policy covering sexual orientation and gender identity, 3) providing domestic partner health insurance benefits, and 4) offering at least one insurance benefit for employees wanting to change their sex.” BP News noted that “gender identity” category “includes cross dressers and, when fully implemented, allows for men to use women’s restrooms, and vice versa.”

While DOMA continues for the moment to keep the federal government from matching the private sector in gender “equality,” an increasing army of “LGBT” federal employees has led to the creation of a network of homosexual interest groups dedicated to pushing the envelope for “gays” in government. Such special interest fraternities as DOJ Pride, the Federal Equality Council, the DoD’s Fed Globe, Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, and even an activist group in the Department of Homeland Security, appear to be making the granting of full benefits for homosexual employees and their partners a nearly all-encompassing obsession.

“The glass is a third full,” Diego Sanchez, a “transgender” aide to homosexual Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), complained to the Washington Post of the ground gained by “gay” federal employees. “We need to step up the pace.”

Marc Salans, president of DOJ Pride, told the Washington Post that dealing with DOMA is the “next tier” problem for gay federal employees. “What do we do about family benefits?” asked Salans, who claims 13-year-old twins with his homosexual partner, a DOJ attorney. “We are butting our heads against DOMA.”

In addition to President Obama, who has refused his responsibility to defend the federal marriage law, homosexual employees have an ally in Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who is aggressively pushing her proposed Respect for Marriage Act, which would effectively rescind DOMA and legalize homosexual marriage for federal purposes.

While, as reported by The New American, there is no danger of the bill’s passage in this Congress, Feinstein promised that she would keep hammering away until her measure becomes law. “Virtually any advance in civil rights or any kind of rights has been carried by the Democratic Party,” she said. “It’s just a fact. So, we’ll just march on. We’ll continue this. And if I have to reintroduce it next session, I’ll reintroduce it. Session after that, I’ll reintroduce it.”

Lucy on gay rights: ‘It’s perfectly all right with me.’

Sunday, August 7th, 2011

Chicago Go Pride

Chicago, IL — Lucille Ball, who would have turned 100 Saturday, is remembered as one of the most celebrated comic actresses by fans across the nation.


The Emmy Award-winning comedienne starred on both stage and screen, but is undoubtable remembered for her role in the 1950s classic TV sitcom “I Love Lucy.”

Many remember the red-headed icon as a trailblazer, even on the subject of gay rights.

In an interview with People magazine in 1980, Ball was asked, “How do you Feel about gay rights?”

“It’s perfectly all right with me,” she responded. ”Some of the most gifted people I’ve ever met or read about are homosexual. How can you knock it?”

Ball was also remembered across the Internet including on Google’s home page, which featured an interactive doodle modeled after the intro the her show.

The lovable Lucille Ball passed away on April 26, 1989 after she suffered from an aneurysm at the age of 77.

Judge: Christian frat can ban homosexuals

Thursday, October 1st, 2009


A federal court has ordered the University of North Carolina at Chapel

Hill to reinstate a Christian fraternity which had been denied recognition

because its officers refused to sign the university’s nondiscrimination po-

licy requiring the group to allow homosexuals to join.

The preliminary injunction, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Frank

W. Bullock Junior, will permit Alpha Iota Omega access to student funds

and university facilities, like other fraternities on campus. The order will

remain in force until the issue of compliance with the university’s policy

against discrimination is settled, most likely in court.

«This is the first battle in the lawsuit, and we are victorious in that sense,»

said Joshua Carden, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, the Ari-

zona-based organization representing the fraternity.

Alpha Iota Omega was formed six years ago for the purpose of «providing

leadership and outreach to the campus Greek community through evange-

lism and mentorship.»

As reported by WorldNetDaily, the fraternity had made numerous at-

tempts to convince the university to change its policy that required them

to admit homosexuals. In a letter to UNC-CH Chancellor James Moeser,

the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

(FIRE), a national civil liberties organization, emphasized the fraternity’s

belief that a shared faith was central to the group’s identity: «UNC simply

may not use its nondiscrimination policy to dictate how religious student

organizations must deal with matters of faith. No group can control the

content of its message if it is unable to choose its messengers.»

Moeser and the university, however, refused to back down, insisting that all

student groups must have open memberships. The policy requires recognized

student groups to open membership to anyone, regardless of age, race, color,

«At this university, we encourage students to nurture their moral, spiri-

tual and religious lives,» he wrote in reply. «And we do not discriminate

against students seeking recognition for religious groups.

«So, for example, Baptist student groups are open to Presbyterian stu-

dents; Jewish student groups are open to Christian students; the Italian

Club is open to Korean students; and the Black Student Movement is open

to white students,» Moeser concluded. Official recognition of the frater-

nity was withdrawn last August and Alpha Iota Omega filed suit.

The preliminary injunction puts Alpha Iota Omega «on the same footing

as nonreligious organizations which select their members on the basis of

commitment … ,» Bullock wrote in his order. The nondiscrimination po-

licy, the judge said, «raises significant constitutional concerns and could

be violative of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.»

In the wake of Judge Bullock’s ruling, Moesler is still standing firm in his

support of the nondiscrimination policy, according to the Durham Herald

Sun, telling a meeting of the Faculty Council, «No one has won at this

point. We continue to believe in the merits of the university’s position.»

UNC was involved in a similar flap in 2002 when it withheld recogni-

tion for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship because the group required its

leaders to be Christians. The uproar that followed was met with a change

of mind by Chancellor Moeser at that time, and a policy was adopted

allowing religious groups to require that leaders share the group’s faith.

However, membership had to remain open to all.

During 2002’s summer session, UNC drew national attention for requiring

its 3,600 incoming freshmen and transfer students to enroll in a class on

Islam and attend group discussions around the mandatory text, «Approa-

ching the Qur’an: The Early Revelations.»