MLK’s Views on Homosexuality
All Things Consider — By Naomi Scheinerman on January 16, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Three years ago today, on MLK Day, I visited a museum display of artifacts and items from King’s life at the Michigan Union. In the collection were photographs, letters, pins, medals, awards, certificates, clothing, and other personal possessions. I set a trajectory toward the letter section and commenced reading. They were primarily correspondences he had as minister with congregants. I do not remember the details or even the subject matter of any of the letters save one: a young boy wrote King and revealed he liked other boys– not girls, and sought King’s advise on what to do. King’s response: Pray to God to fix your condition and save you from wrong doing which would occur if you would act on such sinful feelings.
I was floored – disappointed and upset, but mainly confused. On the day that celebrates one of the most tremendous leaders and civil rights activists in history, I had learned that perhaps he was not as visionary as I had thought, perhaps not so supportive of everyone having civil rights. It felt to me that King’s passionate and fiery language, actions, and efforts that proved so vital and energizing both at the time and today for everyone, whose message is universal and applicable to all and whose dream is tangible and alive, possessed views that today are seen as outdated, backwards, and repressive. I am left wondering: is King’s homophobic perspective something we should discuss and be concerned about, something we should acknowledge and then move on in order to celebrate the good that he did, or something that we should just ignore and dismiss?
If we focus primarily on his perspective on gays, we miss the whole point of today. Today is about celebrating the good that he did for black rights, and black and white relations in the US. Today is about celebrating his vision of civil rights for all (except gays) as a model that we can continue to look to today. Amidst this celebrate and reflection, can we discover the correct balance between celebrating a tremendous leaders’ accomplishments and also acknowledging his faults? At the same time, however, it is important to realize that his views were not out of line with those at the time on gay rights and being gay in general.
Is it so important that a leader who helped so many be open to helping absolutely everyone? There is evidence suggesting that Gandhi was anti-Semitic. Does that mean we should view his accomplishments in India and for his people, and his views on peace and non-violence any differently? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Or, should we just consider them also in light of his negative views toward other people? Conversely, would dismissing and ignoring King’s views on homosexuality do an injustice to our LGBTQ community?
History and memory are tricky things. They are dynamic and flexible aspects of our existence. As history changes, so too does our memory of it. Today as gay rights is becoming more common and acknowledge and rightfully accepted, despite unfortunately many more hurdles that must be overcome, we look through our lens of the present to examine the footage of the past. The ultimate question is how much should we? How much is appropriate? And also, how little is inappropriate?
By: Naomi Scheinerman
(Photo by j l t under a Creative Commons license)
| Share and Enjoy: |
|
Tweet |
Tags: civil rights, gay, LGBTQ, Martin Luther King Jr., MLK
Subscribe
8 Comments
Read this articular about one of MLKs forgotten righahand gay men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin
Mitt Romney and the homosexual agenda.
Ultimately, I think this sort of thing is a reminder that no one, not even the most powerful and influential leaders in struggles for liberation, is perfect, and they as much as other people can be bundles of contradictions. It should disappoint us that Dr. King didn’t understand the implications of his civil rights activism in the realm of sexuality as well, and we should be ready to critique his views honestly and thoroughly. But I don’t think it should surprise us, and it shouldn’t diminish our appreciation of his visionary and dedicated work for racial justice. Everyone is contradictory, and we just need to be careful not to idolize and idealize our heroes.
Yeah I totally agree with this. For Pete’s sakes Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus but that doesn’t mean they didn’t make progress.
Moreover, MLK was a baptist minister, while I’m not saying it excuses anything (or even that there is anything that necessarily needs excusing), that is a pretty influential background to be coming out of.
While I agree with your comments, I still think it is important to sort out where to draw the line between when our actions that honor a great leader deviate from praise-for-amazing-deeds and start to seem like praise-for-amazing-deeds-alongside-woefull-ignorance-of-problematic-views-on-other-subjects. In other words, yes in the case of MLK, I absolutely agree he should be remembered the way we do, for his remarkable visionary and leadership skills and work for racial equality. On the other hand, this issue of when someone is a remarkable leader in one camp but has disturbing/conflicting views in another comes up often. A president who has incredibly popular views on health care, education, and income tax for example will get nowhere if she is an Islamophobe. Similarly, a Senator who has served his constituents admirably and is wildly popular because he has cleaned up the streets, pushed for more environmentally friendly regulations, and expanded welfare will immediately lose favor if he is involved in a sex scandal, such as an extra-marital affair. It is becoming harder and harder today to be a polymath of politics and leadership: someone whose views are wholly noncontroversial. Just the other day a professor and I were discussing that Al Gore probably rose to being vice president and nearly president because he simply didn’t offend anyone. It’s not unfair to remember influential leaders fauls alongside celebrating their accomplishments, as long as their is due time spent on both activities.
Yeah, I think that last sentence is exactly it; the good and the bad both have to be addressed with more or less equal time.
Equal time? That doesn’t seem to be what you were suggesting in your initial post. Do you think we should talk abot MLK’s views on homosexuality just as much as we talk about his views on equal rights for blacks?
I’d stand behind the equal time thing. It depends on the context, of course, but in general both should be acknowledged and treated with equal seriousness. I think what I was getting at in the original post was just that, while King’s views on homosexuality were repugnant, that doesn’t somehow cancel out what we think of his views on racial justice. Both just need to be aired and acknowledged.