Alveda King clarifies meaning of Civil Rights at rally

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Dr. Alveda King speaks at the "One Man, One Woman" marriage rally
in Atlanta, Georgia on August 7, 2010 at the State Capitol.

After a long drive from Saint Louis, MO and a few hours sleep we were right back at it today in Atlanta, GA standing up for what is right and for what is best for our society and our children and our future.

This time we were standing up with Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the Director of African American Outreach of Priests for Life.

The significance of having the opportunity to work with Dr. Alveda King today is clear. Our opponents have been grasping onto - in fact hijacking the Civil Rights Movement for the advancement of their own agenda. Today we were able to set the record straight about civil rights is all about - at least the kind of civil rights her uncle fought and died for - and that is what Dr. Alveda King sought to do today by joining us in defense of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

In an interview I held with her after the rally, Alveda taked about her beliefs on this matter.

Question 1: Do you think we should separate our faith from our government? 
Reasoning: Our opponents repeatively claim that the principle of separation of church and state demand that we keep our private faith beliefs out of the public square.

DR. ALVEDA KING'S ANSWER: Well, I'm always looking for a unity of the faith and that's the people coming together in faith. Government can not govern our hearts and so when it comes to an issue of faith that's going to be we the people rising up in faith doing what we know in our hearts is right.

The government can not mandate that, the government really can not control that and so the government should not keep people from voting.

Question 2: We have heard some comparisons between the legalization of same-sex marriage and the legalization of interracial marriages. Do you think there is a legitimate comparison between the two?
A protester in Atlanta holds a
sign that says "People of different
colors couldn't marry until 1967"
which is a reference to the
Loving v. Virginia case. 
Reasoning: Our opponents constantly cite the Loving v. Virginia case that struck down bans on interracial marriages as reasoning to strike down bans on same-sex marriage. They think they are one in the same. 

DR. ALVEDA KING'S ANSWER: There is one race on the planet and that's the human race and of one blood everybody was made. And so to tell two people that they can't marry because of differences in skin color is against the foundational understanding that is in our hearts that we're one race.

So any man of any complexion can marry any woman of any complexion and that lines up with the Bible. Now, the civil rights of all human beings, and the rights to human dignity also can be found in the Bible and the Biblical principles.

Now the issue of two men marrying or two women marrying of course in direct opposition to what's there. And so therefore, it's not a civil right... when you consider the question of sexuality, the guidelines are clear.

They are inherently made within us that two men or two women can not procreate. So the civil rights question would follow closely to the natural laws that are in the Bible and there are no natural laws that say that two men or two woman can procreate and therefore they should not marry.

Question 3: Some of our opponents say that defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman is really an act of hatred towards homosexuals. What do you think about that?
Reasoning: Our opponents think that we hate them and that our cause is centered around a mutual hatred of homosexuals. 

DR. ALVEDA KING'S ANSWER: Many times a lack of understanding causes us to feel as though someone hates us. And so we love everybody. Everyone that God created is deserving of love. Love and sexuality are two different things.

And so the discussion comes down to - the debate comes up that you're going to be mad with me because I'm going to have sex... however I want to have sex. We're not going to be mad with anybody but we must point out that sexuality has a purpose - that purpose is procreation and procreation occurs when there is sex between a man and a woman.

One man's sperm and one woman's egg come together to make a baby and so that is the process that we are upholding and that is the process that is protected by marriage between one man and one woman.

Question 4: How do you feel about our opponents using the Civil Rights Movement for the advancement of their own cause? 
Reasoning: Advocates of same-sex marriage often quote Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and use the Civil Rights Movement he led and died for as a foundation of the homosexual agenda to redefine marriage.

DR. ALVEDA KING'S ANSWER: I believe that all human beings should get a full understanding of what the meaning of civil rights is. Civil rights means human rights. And that means dignity from conception until natural death.

And so if we are fighting for human dignity and human rights then our own personal desires and preferences and doing what we want does not measure into that equation. And so people who disagree with the principles and the standards of Natural Law which can also be called Bible Law - that's when you get into the differences and the discussion.

And so I believe that those who feel as though they are hated or that we are against them should reexamine their own hearts and the basis of Natural Law and what they will find in us and in those principles is the love of God and love will not fail anybody.

*NOTE:  A video of this interview will be available soon and a link will be added here in order to view it.

It was a great honor to meet Dr. Alveda King and it was great to stand beside her in our mutual struggle.

Vernessa Mitchell
Angelica Tucker
After Dr. King's comments, we had a special show for Atlanta in store. Two soloists came with Alveda and performed for us. They really did a great job and their songs really made our stop in Atlanta special.

The singer to the right, Angelica Tucker, provided an emotionally charged performance singing "Rebuild", a song she wrote herself.

The singer to the left, Vernessa Mitchell, followed Angelica and put on a great performance singing "Unity", a song which drew the attention and the applause of our opponents. Vernessa was an honored performer at the Inaugural Ball for President Clinton.

It was nice to find something in common with the counter-protesters, Brian Brown joked at the podium.

It was indeed humorous seeing our opponents dancing and singing to the performers at our rally. It really lightened things up today and that is something that we should be encouraging to happen between our two sides more often.

We've seen so much hate from our opponents throughout the course of the marriage tour alone from Albany to Providence to Madison. To see our opponents stnad with us in appreciation of art and music was a nice breath of fresh air. I mean, look at them.
Protesters dance, sing and hold hands during performance of Vernessa Mitchell,
a supporter of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. 


Anonymous said...

Remind me, Louis, what is Ms. King a Dr of exactly?

Sinnerviewer said...

I was hoping to see the video that you all took of me with my message to Maggie Gallagher. What a disappointment that you opted not to post it. But then again, you even told me that "it was a good one" - you know it would point out the hypocrisy of your entire organization and the lies that you spread.

For those of you who are curious as to what it said, I wrote on my sign: "Maggie, the Bible also says 'put a knife to your throat if any of you are given to gluttony'" Maggie needs to take the plank out of her own eye and stop ignoring the scriptures that apply to her death for being a slothful glutton.

In 30 years, you all will be likened to the deep south majority fighting to keep segregation and using the Bible to back up your argument. Better yet, to church leaders during the civil war era who preached that the Bible endorsed slavery. You use the Bible to gain political power to advance evil motives. Jesus called you Pharasees. You will soon lose and there will be marriage for all.

Steve P. said...

So MLK's niece is a gay hater. Big deal. The late Coretta Scott King believed gay rights were civil rights. Here's what she said in a 2004 speech: "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages." In case you forgot, her husband was murdered because he fought for civil rights and people were afraid (you know a thing or two about people being afraid of civil rights for people unlike them, don't you Louis?). Louis Marinelli might not think same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue but let's face it, Coretta Scott King's opinion carries just a bit more weight. I know you can't argue with that.

Steve P. said...

Here's another opinion of someone who knows a little something about civil rights. You guys like to criticize equality supporters when they draw parallels between interracial and same-sex marriage bans. Well maybe we should consider the opinion of the woman at the center of the case that led to the end of interracial marriage bans in this country. I'm thinking her opinion should carry a little more weight than that of Louis Marinelli or Maggie Gallagher.

Mildred Loving (plantiff in Loving v Virginia): "I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights."

Anonymous said...

Coretta Scott King, Rep John Lewis, Julian Bond and many other Leaders from the Civil Rights Movement; many of whom who actually stood should-to-shoulder with MLK during the battle for Civil Rights have all come out in support of LGBT EQuality and believe that it is a logical progression of 'The Dream' put forth by MLK.

Alvedea (neice of MLK) and Bernice (daughter of MLK) are notoriously on the record opposing LGBT EQuality. They do not speak for MLK nor any of the legacy members of the Civil Rights movement.

Alveda and Bernice should be called out for their use of *religion* as a basis for their Discriminatory positions ... organizations like the "Southern Baptist Convention" were founded to combat EQuality among the races .. and they used The Bible to Justify their positions.

It didn't make it right then .. and it certainly doesn't make it right now.

Anonymous said...

Alveda King would be a nobody had she not cashed in on her uncle's legacy. Neither she nor the anti-gay King kids speak for MLK or Coretta Scott King.

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" - Coretta Scott King, speaking four days before the 30th anniversary of her husband's assassination

Vienna said...

Louis, Louis, Louis... if you really want to be on our side, come over here and JOIN us. No need to skulk over there just imitating us and trying to play like you ARE us. Crying that we are intolerant to YOU? Claiming that YOU are defending civil rights when your sole aim is to prevent US from marrying? So far, about all you HAVEN'T done is tried to claim that opposite sex marriage IS marriage equality... oh, no... wait... you tried that...

I love you, Louis... really I do. Few on the equality side of the argument have been so helpful to our cause as you have. And now you are going to try to steal another of our "tactics" and become an interviewer. So let me give you a few tips.

1) If you have to put the "reasoning" for a question down after you've asked it, you have either asked it badly, or your interviewee has not answered it well. Try this, instead. Ask the question you mean to ask, and if you don't get a clear answer, restate the original question better and try again. Arisha has done this well, in trying to get Brian to answer a question.

2) Listen to what your interviewee says. Respond to what she says. When you don't get an answer (and you didn't, for any of the questions you actually asked), ask a follow up to get to an answer. Otherwise, you might just as well say "Here is a microphone. Please talk about something, I will be back in a few minutes to collect the microphone."

3) Try asking some interesting questions that pertain directly to your subject. Instead of sticking just to your talking points, find something personal about them to ask about, otherwise you might just as well say "Here is a list of what we believe in. Please speak about that. I'll be back in a few minutes to collect the microphone." Arisha asked Alveda some questions about her experiences and got back some telling responses.

4) And this is a biggie... try not to be biased in your questions. Ask a question in a neutral way (that is, without the slant your "reasoning" statements contain) and let your subject answer it however they will. Don't let them avoid the question, but don't lead them by the hand to the answer you are looking for. Listen to what they actually DO answer. You will get MUCH better material that way. Look to Arisha's interview of your supporter Larry for a classic example of this principle.

However, if you do want your subject to give you the answers you want... several suggestions. Get them the study materials early so they can learn them better than Alveda did, pick a subject who is a better off the cuff speaker, and shoot for one who is actually a good speaker, rather than one who simply has famous relatives (who disagree with her position anyway).

Bless your heart, Louis!

Good luck with future interviews.

Vienna said...

Oh, and if you need help thinking of questions to ask, come over to and let us help you out… we have HUNDREDS of people brainstorming this stuff, as you know.

Mike Tidmus said...

“To penalize someone because of their sexual orientation is like what used to happen to us; to be penalized for something which we could do nothing [about] — our ethnicity, our race. I would find it quite unacceptable to condemn, persecute a minority that has already been persecuted.”

— Desmond Tutu, South African Archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize winner comparing apartheid and homophobia

Anonymous said...

Louis, Louis, Louis ...

Where is your picture that shows exactly how many people were at your rally? Your tight closeup is all well and good -- but we happen to know that there were only 16 people present. Yeah, they are really "thronging" to you.

BTW, that song "Unity" that was performed? I do not think it means what you think it means.


Anonymous said...

"Doctor" King wrote: And so if we are fighting for human dignity and human rights then our own personal desires and preferences and doing what we want does not measure into that equation. And so people who disagree with the principles and the standards of Natural Law which can also be called Bible Law - that's when you get into the differences and the discussion.

And so I believe that those who feel as though they are hated or that we are against them should reexamine their own hearts and the basis of Natural Law and what they will find in us and in those principles is the love of God and love will not fail anybody.

I guess that "Doctor" King (most people with honorary doctorates to not go around using the title as though they earned it) missed the day in junior high school civics class where the basis of law in this country was explained.

Hint to "Doctor" King: it isn't the Bible.


Susie said...

Keep doing what you're doing, Louis! Don't ever back down!

Anonymous said...

Wow.. you seem to have struck a nerve with this interview. Good job! It never ceases to amaze me how people try to compare race to sexual PREFERENCE. It's a shame, really. Thanks for trying to point this out!

Sinnerviewer said...

Why didn't you ask Alveda, the "traditional marriage" proponent why she never took her husband's last name? It's traditional, after all. I guess their names could pay as well as "King". Why didn't you also ask her how can she claim marriage is so sacred when she's been divorced? Hypocrites! the lot of you...

Steve P said...

"Anonymous" @ 4:32 - no one is saying that race and sexual orientation are analogous - since each is a unique aspect of human existence, there is no perfect analogy to either. That doesn't mean that parallels can't be drawn. And Coretta Scott King, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Mildred Loving and others, who probably have more authority to speak on civil rights than you, agree.

Steve P. said...

NOM's alarming new strategy, their attempt to spin their agenda to limit the rights of gays into some new sort of civil rights movement, will surely be a spectacular failure. Even those who are somewhat ambivalent about marriage equality will view this desperate move as insulting and offensive. Who knows how many on-the-fence people this will actually move over to the equality side.

Not that Louis will post this, he'll bend over backwards for an excuse to not post me, but...

Just like Louis and all the NOM folk, Ms King is a professional hatemongering liar. She is a doctor in honorary status only, she has NO medical degree. She has never actually met her uncle more than a handful of times, and each time she was but a child. Martin's wife and best frined who both worked with him knew him better than anyone else. Ms King is a leech coasting on the family name even though she doesn't come CLOSE to having the right to use it. Her Uncle would find her actions deplorable and hateful. MLK's best friend was openly gay. And MLK's with supported true equality. Ms King is a disgrace to her name, and the fact the NOM would invite her to speak when it swears up and down it's not comprised of bigots is at best laughably mnisguided and at worst shows how hateful and completely out of touch with reality the NOM crowd is.

Anonymous said...

Sam Schulman in his opinion piece, GAY MARRIAGE: WHY JUDGE WALKER GOT PROPOSITION 8 RULING WRONG, in the Christian Science Monitor (6 August 2010) said,
"...providing benefits to couples is not the whole purpose of marriage. It’s not even its primary purpose. And that’s what’s wrong with Mr. Walker’s ruling, and the arguments on both sides of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger. They’ve been arguing over marriage’s benefits. Instead, we need to be thinking about marriage’s role in sustaining the existence of the human species. When we do that, we’ll see the fundamental wisdom of the decision of the majority of California voters...In primordial terms, marriage only exists at all – in all of its permutations, pleasant or barbaric – because of the nature of human heterosexuality. As a species, we need to protect female sexuality in order to assure ourselves of a future...Marriage is a necessary defense of a woman’s sexuality and her human liberty from determined assault by men who would turn her into a slave, a concubine – something less than fully human..."

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" wrote: Marriage is a necessary defense of a woman’s sexuality and her human liberty from determined assault by men who would turn her into a slave, a concubine – something less than fully human..."

Wow. This is why I always say that when you scratch a homophobe, a misogynist bleeds. Could you possibly be any more patronizing?

Bless your heart, Louis, er, "Anonymous."


Jude said...

Sam Shulman...Marriages role in sustaining the existence of the human species. Not again. Judge Walker got it exactly right. Lets cover this again.
1) Procreation is not a requirement of legal marriage
2) Procreation occurs outside of marriage at an alarming rate, around 30%
3) Half of marriages end in divorce
4) A marriage license provides legal rights and legal commitments designed to protect both spouses and children.
5) Humans are not going to go extinct if we allow gay marriage. No one is taking away heterosexual marriage or the right to procreate.
6) Heterosexuals lose nothing. They are not threatened in any way.

Louis - please tell Brian and Maggie that I'm waiting for a response to my request for a live interview.

Anonymous said...

On August 10 of 2010, Fiona64 wrote a reply: "...I always say that when you scratch a homophobe, a misogynist bleeds." Wow! Sarcasm and patronizing in your response. Name-calling continues dismissively of those who desire to preserve the traditional understanding of marriage. The general characterization that supporters of Proposition 8 are supporting "hate" continues but with a different tactic, smugly sophisticated arrogance.

It would be ludicrous to deny that history (and by logical deduction pre-history) is replete with instances of the unjust subjugation of women by men. Many sincerely believe that marriage, although imperfect with its high divorce rate, is a refining evolution of matrimony toward more equality of the sexes gradually shedding the unreasonable subordination of wives by their husbands. Modern marriage offers much more protection than the old ways where women were the property of their fathers and then their husbands if they weren't sold off into slavery or left to fend for themselves where survival was simply boiled down to something not much beyond the primitive need to find food and shelter, which left many women to whatever means would guarantee their survival.

Many supporters of Prop 8 supported civil unions and domestic partnerships to justly ensure that one partner could have their trusted partner carry out their wishes when needed. I sincerely do not know the difference between the rights that those have in a civil union or domestic partnership. What rights have heterosexuals had in marriage that are not included in civil unions?

I believe that even if those differences in rights were "equalized" so that civil unions/domestic partnerships contained the same rights that would not be acceptable to homosexuals; they have to have the word, too. They desperately desire to be perceived as an alternate form of normal human sexuality, a different sexual orientation. The biological reality is that the primary purpose of sexual intercourse is for the procreation of the species. One may exercise that right or choose not to procreate, but to go through the motions of procreation by simulating intercourse in an unnatural homosexual manner truly is a sexual disorientation. The impossibility of homosexuals being able to procreate is not an inequality imposed upon homosexuals by heterosexuals. It simply is the natural way.

Anonymous said...

On August 10, Jude first platform statement is correct: legal marriage does not require procreation, yet when children are born there is, ideally, a legal support structure built into marriage.
#2: Illegitimate children are innocent of the poor choices of unwed parents to procreate intentionally or unintentionally.
#3: High heterosexual divorce rate? True again. Is the implication here that heterosexual marriage causes that? Might it not be a slew of other factors that have nothing to do with loyalty and commitment to a relationship that has the capacity to bring forth children if they so choose (and many do)?

#4: Correct again, but remember children are the natural result of a female-male union. For homosexuals to have children requires them to depend on the heterosexual paradigm; that in itself is parasitic, using a member of the opposite gender to achieve their desire to have children - women would be viewed as brood mares and men as sperm donors. A homosexual union can never produce children.
#5 & 6: Many of us who value and desire to preserve the historical definition of marriage do perceive a very real slide toward an unstable society with so many children brought forth by parents who are not married or will not step up and be the parent that the child desperately needs along with the corruption of marriage by the inclusion of same sex marriage (I personally know homosexuals who are excellent parents and/or guardians, but the model is sexually confusing - Daddy #1, did you and Daddy #2 make me? Who are my parents?) and then the attendant legal issues that may arise if homosexual marriage is forced upon the masses who have repeatedly voted to assert that marriage is a one woman - one man institution. I do feel a threat to our society by homosexual marriage as another nail in the coffin. Some of the other nails are the high divorce rate and the attendant dysfunction and discord that contaminate the atmosphere at home; the high rate of children born out of wedlock, lenient parenting offering few if any boundaries . . .

Sinnerviewer said...

Rest easy, Anonymous! I am a lesbian and have 2 children ages 16 and 18. The oldest is an official candidate for the Air Force Academy next year and also an Eagle Scout. He serves on his student council and wants to be an engineer, an Air Force pilot and someday, go into politics. My 16 year old is an accomplished piano player, writer and English honors student. They are both members of BETA club. They both have highly structured routines, lots of boundaries and are always earning compliments from strangers about their polite, respectful behavior.

Not sure if you heard the news about a recent study that examined children from all family structures but the children who did the best out of all of the scenarios, including heterosexual marriages, were children of LESBIAN couples. I know you might never hear it any other place because I know what it's like to live in an fundamental, evangelical bubble. Trust me, though, someday you will feel like a giant jackass for being a part of this. Much like the Southern Baptists must feel about their part in defending slavery during the Civil War (using the Bible to justify it) or how they also must feel about preaching segregation from the pulpits during the Civil Rights movement. Someday, posterity will look upon NOM with utter disdain and the church will AGAIN have to apologize for its atrocities against a certain people group.

Let's face it, NOM doesn't really care about marriage or they'd be going after the biggest threat to marriage: divorce. Instead, you are worried about less that 10% of the population and how them being married might make you all extinct. What, if we can get married, suddenly you can't? Or suddenly heterosexual people will stop being heterosexual and start "choosing" to be gay?? When did you choose to be gay?

There isn't the slightest effort on NOMs behalf to try to legislate how easy/difficult it should be or to even allow divorce at all. If the concern is really keeping children in a 2 parent home, why not fight to make divorce illegal for parents who have any children under 18? Is it because nobody would send you a check for that cause? Methinks that it's much easier to get people to send money when it involves persecuting others. Not so much when it affects your own life.

Tell me, Louis, did Maggie ever see the video that you took of me with my sign reminding her about what the Bible says about gluttony? When are you all going to tackle the issue of the immoral lifestyle choice of gluttony and sloth? That needs to be next..

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Sinnerview. People unrelated to children, who serve as their guardians, have conscientiously nurtured and cultivated very fine individuals as you obviously have with your two teens - biological, adopted, or artificially inseminated - but we will have to agree to disagree on the mutating of traditional marriage to include homosexual marriage as Fr. Thomas Euteneuer articulated in "Gay Marriage and the End of Christian Civilization" that it "distorts the very concept of parenting as well as marriage. Even if you overlook the fact that gay marriage is by definition sterile, every child of a gay marriage has to be adopted or artificially inseminated (unless brought forth naturally), and that in itself is a violation of the whole concept of family." Again, the underlying paradigm that brings forth children is the heterosexual model.

I am neither evangelical nor fundamentalist, and I guarantee that I will always stubbornly hold to what I view is biological and sociological truth just like a giant member of the horse family (a donkey is a member of the horse family, isn't it?). I am not arguing that heterosexual marriage is perfect, as alluded to previously. I am arguing against changing the word and its definition to include a homosexual partnering just as I would argue against not allowing someone to be classified as a car if they chose to live in a garage rather than a house.

Give the homosexuals the right to marry, and all people in their right mind will be happy. Denying them of this right is just medieval thinking.

Post a Comment


November 2010

Support Marriage

Sign Our Petition