What Would MLK Have Said About Gay Ri...

What Would MLK Have Said About Gay Rights? Ask His Wife

There are 546 comments on the www.queerty.com story from Jan 16, 2012, titled What Would MLK Have Said About Gay Rights? Ask His Wife. In it, www.queerty.com reports that:

Unfortunately, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose birthday we honor today, was assassinated before the gay rights movement became a force on the American stage, so we'll never know for sure what he may have done to further the cause of gay and lesbian rights had he lived. The person who knew him best, his wife, Coretta Scott King, was certain, however, that King’s legacy was equality for all. To that end, she dedicated much of her time to LGBT equality issues before her death in 2006.

Editor's note: This article is from 2009 but is worth reading as it's still very relevant today on Martin Luther King Jr. day in the USA.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.queerty.com.

First Prev
of 28
Next Last

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#638 Feb 8, 2012
the voice of reason wrote:
<quoted text>They were not look on as white people but still people. Let us not get into race comparison because there is no race without faults.
He demonstrates the irrational, scientifically unsupportable prejudice that kept the founders from freeing the slaves and treating them as equal under the law is still alive today.

"Nothing dies so hard, or rallies so often as intolerance." -- Henry Ward Beecher
he would have said

Chatsworth, CA

#640 Apr 24, 2012
Everyone is created equal, We are all part of the human family

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/what...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#641 Apr 24, 2012
But we don't need to change the definition of marriage to satisfy sexual desire.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#642 Apr 25, 2012
"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" and "the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...

“As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”(Gill)

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#643 Apr 25, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"The Court ... the Court,...
You are citing the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, a state court. The US Supreme Court upheld a state's right to define marriage as between husband and wife when it reviewed Baker v Nelson and allowed that ruling to stand.

Anyone can find an out of touch activist court somewhere; this is why leftists appeal to foreign law.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#644 Apr 25, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You are citing the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, a state court. The US Supreme Court upheld a state's right to define marriage as between husband and wife when it reviewed Baker v Nelson and allowed that ruling to stand.
Anyone can find an out of touch activist court somewhere; this is why leftists appeal to foreign law.
No, I quoted two separate federal court decisions: Golinski. and Gill.

Baker, 1972, was of course considered in the prop 8 trial. Baker is a summary decision, which according to Mandel v. Bradley, limits its value to the precise issues presented, and it only considered gender, not sexual orientation. It also considered whether Minnesota was required to give two men a marriage license. It did not consider if the voters of California could take away equal rights previously recognized by the legislature and the courts. Nor did it consider whether the Federal government can deny civil rights recognized by the states.

At the time, being gay was still illegal in many places. Baker relied on the false belief it was acceptable to punish gay people by denial of equal rights. Colorado also decided to deny gay people equal legal treatment through amendment 2. Lawrence and Romer both challenged those notions after Baker was decided, and this time the Supreme court reversed discrimination, and ruled it is unconstitutional to deny gay people equal treatment under the law based on prejudice against sexual orientation. "Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative purpose but to make them unequal to everyone else." (Romer)

Rulings that affirmed marriage as a fundamental civil right, had previously considered procreation as a rationale, though not the determining factor. Now, 14 decisions affirm marriage as a fundamental right, and after Baker, Turner affirmed marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied based on cohabitation, procreation, or even the physical ability to have sex. Those are not required for this fundamental right to be guaranteed to everyone, including convicted criminals.

For these and other reasons, Baker is now old and subsequent decisions including Romer, Zablocki, Turner, and Lawrence, make it obsolete.

http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/1...

http://www.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/file...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 28
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Alveda King: Donald Trump is a compassionate,a ... Jul 17 totallydisgusted 1
News Dead mana s dream still unfulfilled May '17 MaceotheBOY 11
News Dr. Martin Luther King in photos May '17 DemoCrappy 16
News Tuskegee University tapes released Apr '17 redrubylee2012 2
News Columbus organization plan for redevelopment of... (Jan '17) Apr '17 General Zod 2
News Ohio legislative group honors son of MLK for ad... Apr '17 Spotted Girl 1
News King daughter says her mother's papers should b... Apr '17 Oh No You Di-nt 1
More from around the web