|Alveda King - the 'Paris Hilton' of anti-gay activism|
Those who read this blog or keep up with the struggle for lgbt equality should be familiar with the name Alveda King.
For those who aren't, she is the niece of the late and legendary activist Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. A polite way to describe her would be the "Paris Hilton" of anti-gay activism, or someone who brings nothing to the table but her name, which gives a psychological but transparent relevancy exploited by the religious right when they want to make their homophobia sound noble or connected to the African-American civil rights movement.
As such, Alveda really doesn't have the good sense God gave a goose, but she knows how to take advantage of a good gig when she sees one. This being the case, she is constantly on the ready to be called to speak at an anti-gay rally, or on television. In fact, Fox News recently hired her as a pundit (which should say a lot about Fox News, but nothing you probably haven't already heard).
Recently, she took part in a Family Research Council panel discussion where she made several outrageous claims. First she said according to polls, little children have shown that they want a biological father and mother. But hold on because that's not the only outrageous claim she makes. King claims that not only are there more studies which prove that same-sex households are a danger to children, but that media is conspiring to cover this up. She also said she could personally testify about being "harmed and confused." Her statements to this effect begins at 1:30 :
King's entire statement is questionable. I say this as someone who has interviewed her in the past regarding claims she made (more on this later) and based on our conversation, I got the impression that she is a person who is "flying by the seat of her pants," i.e. makes outrageous claims, but can't back them up with proof.
You will notice that she did not mention the specific names of these polls in which little children have said that they want a "biological mother and father."
And her second claim regarding gay parenting studies is even more ridiculous. There are not more studies which prove that gay parenting harms children. And that being the case, there is no conspiracy by the media to hide these studies.
In February of this year, Nathaniel Franck of Columbia Law School began a study which took a look at numerous gay parenting studies of both positive and negative outcomes. According to the Slate online magazine, this is what he said:
In a project launched last month, a team I direct at Columbia Law School has collected on one website the abstracts of all peer-reviewed studies that have addressed this question since 1980 so that anyone can examine the research directly, and not rely on talking heads or potential groupthink. Even when we might not agree with a study’s conclusions—with how a researcher interpreted the data—we still included it if it went through peer review and was relevant to the topic at hand. Peer review, of course, isn’t perfect, but it’s one of the best ways the world has to ensure that research conclusions are at least the product of good-faith efforts to get at the truth.
The Columbia project is the largest collection of peer-reviewed scholarship on gay parenting to date. What does it show? We found 71 studies concluding that kids with gay parents fare no worse than others and only four concluding that they had problems. But those four studies all suffered from the same gross limitation: The children with gay parents were lumped in with children of family breakup, a cohort known to face higher risks linked to the trauma of family dissolution.
So of course King was wrong, but this isn't the first time she has made a false statement. In 2012, she claimed that noted civil rights and lgbt activist Bayard Rustin quit his position as an aide to MLK because MLK would not embrace lgbt equality.
But that statement was an out-and-out lie. From several sources, including the book Lost Prophet: The Life and Times of Bayard Rustin, it is known that Rustin resigned because several other black leaders were jealous of King's influence and were going to spread the story that he and King were lovers.
In this particular case, Alveda King was questioned about her statement and couldn't back it up,
I know this for a fact because I was the one who interviewed her about it.
During the interview, she hemmed, hawed, and made several excuses as to why she wouldn't (I personally believe "couldn't) back up her statement with facts Finally she sent me a column which she claimed proved what she was saying. The column in question was a misdirection.
It would have been easier for King to tell me any event she personally witnessed or heard which led her to make the accusation against Rustin, but she refused to. I tend to think because such an incident didn't happen.
It's sad how MLK's niece is exploiting his legacy to stand against lgbt equality and to lie while doing it. I don't hate her for it because people have to pay their bills somehow.
However, I do want her to know that "girlfriend, I am on to your game."