What a shame that a relative of a great civil rights leader would be spouting such vitriol about gays. Dr. Alveda King was one of the speakers at the National Organization for Marriage rally that just took place in Atlanta. Not to be outdone by the other hateful nonsense being peddled there, Dr. King threw in her own two cents:
“It is statistically proven that the strongest institution that guarantees procreation and continuity of the generations is marriage between one man and one woman. I don’t know about you, but I’m not ready to be extinct and none of us wants to be. We don’t want genocide, we don’t want to destroy the sacred institution of marriage.”
Because marriage is only about making babies. Which is why people have to take a fertility test before receiving their marriage license. And why marriages are required to end once a woman hits menopause. And why we poke holes in the condoms of couples who don’t want children.
You know what really guarantees procreation? Sex. Regardless if it occurs after you’ve signed some paperwork or not. If Dr. King is concerned about this, I’m sure she’ll quickly add how she’s all for unmarried couples having children, right? Or is she just worried that a small fraction of society showing their love for a partner of the same sex will magically turn every human being on the face of the planet gay?
Ironically, if she was really concerned with the extinction of Homo sapiens, she would be a bit more concerned about overpopulation and it’s potentially disastrous effects. You know, something gay people don’t usually contribute to.
What a disgrace to the King name. I hope other relatives and descendants will denounce her views.
Sometimes I think that these bigoted organisations just shoot themselves in the foot, not really convincing anyone new of their view, when they make such statements that are even devoid of internal logic. I mean, it makes no sense at all. The number of fence-sitters who realise you’re an idiot must be more than the number of fence-sitters who are suddenly convinced that equal legal recognition of same-sex partnerships would somehow prevent normal marriage and end procreation…
And this, my friends, is a prime example of why people need to recognize that appeals to authority are fallacious. Though “niece of someone cool” is dubious authority to begin with.
Everyone should take the time to read the entire decision: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3537…Here’s a long quote from the Conclusions section: “….Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity orintent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriagelicense is more than a license to have procreative sexualintercourse. FF 21. “[I]t would demean a married couple were itto be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexualintercourse.” Lawrence, 539 US at 567. The Supreme Court recognizes that, wholly apart from procreation, choice and privacyplay a pivotal role in the marital relationship. See Griswold, 381US at 485-486.Race restrictions on marital partners were once common inmost states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre. FF 23-25. When the Supreme Court invalidated race restrictions inLoving, the definition of the right to marry did not change. 388US at 12. Instead, the Court recognized that race restrictions,despite their historical prevalence, stood in stark contrast to theconcepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry. Id.The marital bargain in California (along with otherstates) traditionally required that a woman’s legal and economicidentity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under thedoctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriagenow is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as aunion of equals. FF 26-27, 32. As states moved to recognize theequality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices likecoverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within amarriage. FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from amale-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men andwomen as equals. Id. Yet, individuals retained the right tomarry; that right did not become different simply because theinstitution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the UnitedStates traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples. Theevidence suggests many reasons for this tradition of exclusion,including gender roles mandated through coverture, FF 26-27, socialdisapproval of same-sex relationships, FF 74, and the reality that the vast majority of people are heterosexual and have had no reasonto challenge the restriction, FF 43. The evidence shows that themovement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward aninstitution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects anevolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change inmarriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose forexcluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have neverrequired spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate inorder to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as anartifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinctroles in society and in marriage. That time has passed. The right to marry has been historically and remains theright to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join togetherand form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and genderrestrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and genderinequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historicalcore of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is notrelevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to eachother and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside,same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couplesin terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations ofmarriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms anessential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union ofequals……”
What baffles me is the bizarre insistence that gay marriage will somehow end straight marriage. What do they think will happen? As someone said on another blog “Anyone who thinks the only reason that straight men do not forsake women and become homosexual is social pressure has never been a straight man.”Are all the religious fanatics convinced the only reason people are in straight marriages is because gay ones are illegal? Are they all closet homosexuals that think everyone is gay like them?
The decision is such a great source of information-it needs to be cited more often in the media. For those who can’t or won’t) wade through the 130+ pages of the decision, Ted Olsen also presents some masterful arguments:
Concise and clear. Once people are open to listening to reason after hearing how people they care about are affected, Olsen’s reasons will put a lock on them choosing to support marriage for all.
I feel like I’ve stepped into Bizzaro World…
Some more videos to watch:David Boies’ talk at the Commonwealth Club (8/5/2010)
Meet The Press (8/8/2010) – David Boies rips apart Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council ( a right-wing anti-gay group)
That’s okay, cause his WIFE supports gay rights.
I rolled my eyes so hard they hurt.
It never fails to leave me staggered when I hear stuff like this- her uncle fought hard for basic civil rights for african-americans, yet she would keep equal rights away from the LGBT crowd, and call it good?
Errr, yeah. My first thought was gay couples help humans survive by *reducing* the number of babies produced. We are already overpopulated if you ask me. Why do we need to make sure every single person has at least one child? that’s ridiculous. Oh yeah, and the thing you said about marriage not having anything to do with baby-making.
Loved your post. It sickens me to hear members of a traditionally oppressed disadvantaged group (or two, she’s a SHE) oppose equal rights for others. Completely ridiculous that people fail to realize there is a separation of “church” and state and that they can maintain whatever religious beliefs they want (I prefer none) — but they canNOT use their beliefs to keep members not fitting of their paradigm at a societal disadvantage. It’s silly that we even have to debate SSM, as if the LGBT community aren’t human beings.
If she wants to guarantee procreation she should set up a booth with free Extagra, a potent mix of Viagra and Extacy. Wait, could you weaponize extacy? That would be like the orgy bomb…And why do people keep invoking statistics like it is the god of science? I know they really are key and all but if science WAS a religion statistics would be a two faced god like Hel.
Yay logic! Although “niece of someone cool” is obviously immune…
Yet another example of why genetics has no hold on intelligence or common sense. MLK was an outstanding individual. Apparently his genes failed to pass along the family tree. Bigotry is not bounded by color. For those of you who read SF, check out Joe Haldeman’s “The Forever War” where being gay becomes a societal thing to limit population and the hero of the novel becomes ostracized for being straight. He even gets offered therapy to help him adjust. Of course the novel also has a lot of other cool concepts but in regards to the gay thing it’s interesting.
Chalk it up for another reason to oppose hereditary rule and look to people like Bayard Rustin or Mildred Loving instead.
I find her line of b.s. aggravating because it disparages my godless, childless marriage, in a way. My marriage is scarcely different from a same-sex marriage, except for the presence of one XY and one XX partner. Our division of labor doesn’t naturally suggest traditional gender roles–I proposed and manage the checkbook, and he is more the one who cooks, even though I think I do a scotia more cleaning. So let me be the one to sum it up–The pro-straight marriage contingent is materialist, reductionist, and morally relative. They insist upon marriage as being based upon so many “parts” of a human being, to wit, one set of sexual organs, male and female, each, without respects to any other qualities of the persons so involved. “Feelings” and amative compatability are disregarded in favor of the predetermined result of childbearing, quite cutting out the free will of a couple to determine whether they even wanted kids or thought about gender that way.Their theory of marriage is reductionist, in that they allow sex playing a part, but deny companionship, bonding, and all the other social involvement marriage constitutes–such as the adoption of the family of one’s beloved as one’s own, and the choice to let another’s identity be permanently associated with your own: re: “You are someone’s spouse. Anmd that’s how you elect to be called.” And they are morally relative, when a serial adulterer is treated as a husband, but a faithful same0sex partner is treated as not a husband. How is the straight transgressor of marriage vows better than a gay person who is always true?These people are terribly wrong. In so many ways.
So far as I know, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t express any opinions on gay rights or gay marriage. One can disagree with his niece’s statements, but one can’t say whether or not she’s being true to his memory.From a civil rights viewpoint one might argue he’d favor gay marriage. As a Christian minster one can argue he’d oppose it. Neither viewpoint can be stated with any certainty.
If she wants people to have sex to have babies, then marriage should be banned completely *boom tish*
Can you cite a source on that? I’d love to be able to hold that up as an example.
I was actually thinking the same thing. Which is another reason why the appeal to authority needs to be better understood. I’ve spent more time studying Malcolm X than Rev. king, but from what I know of the man, I’d like to believe he would support GLBT rights. But I honestly have doubts.
Ironic, isn’t it.What a pity it is that someone whose uncle was one of the most prominent figures in the struggle for civil rights for black people, is so keen to remove the equal rights of another group.
Whether or not Martin would have supported LGBT rights had he not been killed is a matter of debate. His more liberal-minded wife, Coretta Scott King, maintained before her death that her husband would have been supportive of gays, but his niece disagrees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…Not a sterling source, but it’s way easier than hunting for the stuff on NPR.
That should be supported, since we have lost her light.
Yeah, I’m afraid Mr. Happy would have to testify that social pressure is not the only thing keeping us from going all gay and stuff.
From a cartoon pasted on my Facebook page:”If you don’t like gay marriage, blame straight people.They’re the one who keep having gay babies.”
From what I understand her father wasn’t any great respecter of marriage vows.
I had no idea that gays were that powerful. That simple letting them get married would make us extinct. I still trying to wrap my brain around what kind of wedding reception leads to genocide. Maybe if it were a cash bar, and the hokey-pokey was stuck on autoloop….
Since the only reason that she was invited to speak by NOM was that her last name is “King,” there’s no reason to assume she has anything more to offer. She wasn’t invited because she’s done research about marriage, or has some special insight about marriage; she was invited because of who she’s related to.She’s not there as an expert or even a human being, she’s there as a prop.
The irony of her statement is the current state of humanity regarding population. There are a few things she overlooks in her statement. Birth rates have declined in many “First World” countries. This is more likely due to increased lifespans, lessened infant mortality rates, and equal rights for women. No more having six or seven children just to play the odds. Also, people will always be having sex, and they will always be making babies. Gay people getting married has zero effect on that.She also shows a marked lack of understanding of what genocide actually is. Unless gay people are actively forcing heterosexuals to not have children then it’s pretty far off the mark. Like Mel Walker said, she is there not out of any personal merit but do to pedigree.
If anything same-sex marriage would be a good thing.
Things like adoption, surrogacy and sperm banks, make it possible (if difficult) for gays to have children same as anyone else. Unfortunately for the religious right, that would mean more children who are tolerant toward homosexuals. Gasp!
“I find her line of b.s. aggravating because it disparages my godless, childless marriage, in a way.”My only disagreement with you Vixen, is that it doesn’t just disparage your marriage “in a way.” It is a blatant insult to childless marriages everywhere. How dare she suggest that your marriage is any less desirable or legitimate because you don’t have children? Majorly insulting.
This is meaningless to those using reproduction as a reason against gay marriage. Why? Because the point to them is that the a man/woman combination could, barring medical reasons, actually produce a child in theory. A same-sex couple could never do that in any natural way. Natural meaning good ole sex between the two.
That’s something I never considered: that a lot of the arguments people make against gay marriage regarding ‘tradition’ could just as easily be used to argue against interracial marriages or seeing the woman as an equal.
Religious right railings against sexuality, hetero, homo or whatever are nothing new. The absurd rhetoric we’ve been hearing lately has a lot in common with the kind of rhetoric which was leveled against Dr. King’s uncle’s followers 45 years ago.
She’s not an actual doctor. She only has an honorary doctorate from some catholic college.
Ooo, I need to check that. I don’t have access to dissertations database at home, but can check tomorrow in my office. I’d love to track down the source of her “Dr” title.BTW, her uncle’s title of Dr MLK was absolutely warranted. His thesis for his theology PhD is absolutely deposited in DA, and completely legit. If she is running around promoting an honorary degree as anything legitimate, it would bring her credibility down even more (see: Kent Hovind)
Not only “could” but “were”.
She’s an African-American but she’s not gay. Makes perfect sense if you understand human nature.
I read that book but I don’t remember that. I’ll have to re-read, it’s been almost 30 years.
An update: there are only two people named Alveda who have PhD theses submitted at Dissertation Abstracts. I contend that anyone with a legitimate PhD in the US will have their thesis there. Unless her full name is HILL, PATRICIA ALVEDA LIGGINS, or she has a PhD in surface science, then I conclude that she has not earned a PhD at a legitimate PhD granting institution in the US. Unless she has a medical degree that warrants the title doctor, then I consider her to be dishonest if she goes around calling herself “Dr”. As I noted, her uncle had a legitimate PhD, obtained in 1955 from BU. His thesis was titled, “A COMPARISON OF THE CONCEPTIONS OF GOD IN THE THINKING OF PAUL TILLICH AND HENRY NELSON WIEMAN”