Don't ask - Don't tell - RIP

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
[Q]He was a soldier first, and that was clear when Army Maj. Alan G. Rogers was buried at Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors. Rifles were fired. A bugler played taps. An Army chaplain said the decorated officer would be remembered as "one of the heroes of history."

Rogers, 40, was killed by a makeshift explosive device in Baghdad on Jan. 27 while in a Humvee. "As God would have it," his commanding officer wrote to his family in a letter, "he shielded two men who probably would have been killed if Alan had not been there."[/Q]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032103036.html

Back in the closet even in death.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-washington.html
 
:(

I can understand the Post's decision--he had no longterm partner and no surviving immediate family, and as a matter of policy those are probably the sources they normally rely on for indications as to whether the deceased would have wanted his sexuality referred to, for better and for worse. Still, the fact that he spent all those years advocating for an end to DADT and was out to fellow advocates as well as to friends (and even to quite a few fellow active-duty servicemen, apparently) would certainly seem to suggest that he would have.
 
It sounds like he was an outstanding person and member of the military. I don't know what to think of their decision there, I assume they followed some standard policy they have but it does look bad and like they are "cheating" him even if that wasn't their intention. The whole situation just seems incredibly sad on many levels.

Who wouldn't have wanted to serve with that man?
 
MrsSpringsteen said:

Who wouldn't have wanted to serve with that man?



as we've heard in here several times, it is one thing to serve with a gay man; it is quite another to have to shower with him.
 
Speak To Power

Pentagon balked on gay partner travel
By PATRICK O'CONNOR & DAVID
ROGERS | 4/1/08 4:30 AM EST


Prior to the Easter recess, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was forced to intervene with Defense Secretary Robert Gates in order to get Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin’s domestic partner on a military flight for a congressional fact-finding trip to Europe.

The speaker succeeded, but the issue continues to simmer for both sides. The Pentagon appears to be self-conscious about transporting gay domestic partners at a time when it continues to enforce a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in its own ranks. The speaker is sensitive to the gay rights issue but doesn’t want to be drawn into a situation where it appears she is dictating policy for the use of military planes.

Under House guidelines, members of Congress may take their spouses with them on military flights if there is room for them and when it is “necessary for protocol purposes.” Although Baldwin, the only openly gay woman elected to Congress, exchanged wedding vows with Lauren Azar in 1998, her home state of Wisconsin does not officially recognize same-sex marriages, and military officials were apparently unwilling to consider Azar a “spouse” within the meaning of the House guidelines.

In appealing to Gates, Pelosi aides said their boss was simply asking the defense secretary to follow a precedent established by her predecessor, former Republican Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois. Pelosi told Gates that Hastert had allowed Baldwin to take Azar on a previous trip abroad.

Gates, who was apparently unaware of any earlier trips, told the speaker that she was responsible for the House travel rules and had the authority to make an exception, according to officials on and off the Hill. His only requirement was that Pelosi send him a letter authorizing the trip. Pelosi sent such a letter moments after the phone call ended, and Azar was allowed on the plane.
 
My question is what does this person's heroic act have to do with his sexuality?

He did a selfless thing-the most important thing another human being can do for another.

He's probably looking down from heaven wondering why we're trying to exploit his sexuality.

dbs
 
No one's suggesting the actual manner of his death is somehow reflective of his sexual orientation. But the Post's story was an obit, and not primarily focused on how he died or even on his military career--it went on at considerable length about his upbringing, the degrees he'd earned and what his professors thought of him, his having become an ordained minister, quotes from friends (including nonmilitary friends) and a cousin about what an all-around wonderful friend and son he was, etc. Considering how much time he'd devoted over the past several years to working with groups campaigning for an end to DADT (and the fact that he'd made no secret of why that issue mattered to him in those settings), it just doesn't seem like a random omission that all those other "sides" of his life got addressed, whereas for this one, not even the barest acknowledgment.
 
Last edited:
I think he's probably looking down from Heaven still wondering why anyone would have an issue with a gay man or woman being openly gay (and sharing a shower of course) in the military, and why his sacrifice doesn't make that issue completely moot for some people if nothing else will. No one is exploiting his sexuality. The fact is that he died a hero in spite of all he faced in the military (and in life in general) because of his sexuality- it's much easier for the male heterosexuals. When gay people can be openly gay in the military and be treated exactly the same as everyone else, without discrimination, then it won't be an issue anymore.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
I think he's probably looking down from Heaven still wondering why anyone would have an issue with a gay man or woman being openly gay (and sharing a shower of course) in the military, and why his sacrifice doesn't make that issue completely moot for some people if nothing else will.

I don't.

I say he's moved on to greater things and if he did look down on us he would wonder why you're so angry and tell you not to be-that life is too short.

:)

dbs
 
Well if you're going to look at it that way, then there's really nothing at all here on Earth worth getting "angry" (read: wanting to do something about) over.
 
I see things from a different perspective I suppose.
I don't think he jumped on the bomb to furthur gay rights.

dbs
 
diamond said:
I see things from a different perspective I suppose.

This we definately agree on...

diamond said:

I don't think he jumped on the bomb to furthur gay rights.


No one is claiming this. Sometimes I think you need to stop, leave your own biases at the door and actually try and listen to what people are saying. No one claimed this. Maybe you should go back and read their posts.

You honestly think MLK would "look down" and wonder why the opressed are still angry, or do you think he'd wonder why they are still opressed?
 
Irvine511 said:




erm, his entire military career was about equality.

No disagreement there.

My point is the article reads that he was killed by an IED.
He did a noble act, it had nothing to do with sexuality or sexual preference.
He wasn't thinking about the Rainbow Coalition when this happened; you guys are.

If you guys start meriting soilders heroic acts by sexual orgin or preference-this could start down a slippery slope.

dbs
 
diamond said:


He wasn't thinking about the Rainbow Coalition when this happened; you guys are.

If you guys start meriting soilders heroic acts by sexual orgin or preference-this could start down a slippery slope.

dbs

And the first women and black heroes in the army, that shouldn't be made an issue either... That would have been a slippery slope.
 
diamond said:


No disagreement there.

My point is the article reads that he was killed by an IED.
He did a noble act, it had nothing to do with sexuality or sexual preference.
He wasn't thinking about the Rainbow Coalition when this happened; you guys are.

If you guys start meriting soilders heroic acts by sexual orgin or preference-this could start down a slippery slope.

dbs



you've got it backwards.

it's not that sexual orientation merits heroic acts, but that heroic acts are performed by soldiers of all sexual orientations. thusly, sexual orientation should in no way be a barrier to service in the armed forces.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


And the first women and black heroes in the army, that shouldn't be made an issue either... That would have been a slippery slope.

Who is saying that?

And Martin Luther King Jr.'s neice would say that her uncle would probably disagree with you on gay rights:

What King Allegedly Said in Private
===================================

The controversy arouses every several years. In 1997, King's niece
"denied that homosexuality is a "civil rights" issue. It is an issue
left to the individual and God, she said. Homosexual "marriage" can
never succeed, because God will not recognize it. When the leader of
the African-American gay community told King that homosexuality was
"bondage," she urged him to remain open to the possibility of finding
a way out of it. (SOURCE: Mass. News
<http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/Culture/cult24.htm>).



Furturmore most African American Ministers disagree with the gay movement (and you) trying to align themselves with the struggles of Black Americans in the past:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ar..._clergy_rejection_stirs_gay_marriage_backers/


She's also against abortion calling it racist, genocidal and is conservative in her views -a lot like MLK.

alvedaking.jpg


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=68669

I think if MLK were alive today he wouldn't support the gay movement, nor abortion on demand and backhand Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and call them out for being poverty pimps that they are, dividing America and rebuke them for attempting to pervert his cause and mission.

<>
 
Last edited:
diamond said:


Who is saying that?


You are...

And I could care less what MLK's neice says...

And I could also care less about your SPECULATIONS of what MLK would feel or believe. You have nothing to base your speculations on, therefore you're just reaching and projecting your own beliefs.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


You are...

And I could care less what MLK's neice says...

And I could also care less about your SPECULATIONS of what MLK would feel or believe. You have nothing to base your speculations on, therefore you're just reaching and projecting your own beliefs.

Actually, there's a fair degree of evidence backing up Diamond's point that many African American Ministers disagree with the gay rights movement trying to align themselves with the struggles of Black Americans in the past.
 
I understood BVS' point to be that it can be inspiring and psychologically beneficial for gay people to see examples of highly regarded, admired 'out' gay people from all walks of life, just as it's inspiring for women and black people to have such models. That despite very real continued prejudices in certain arenas, all kinds of possibilities are still open to you. To identify those sorts of common themes in three different historically disadvantaged groups' experiences is obviously not to say that their struggles are exactly the same in all regards, or that people from one group don't enjoy advantages relative to the others in certain situations. The main difference with this particular situation (gay military people who gave their lives in service) is that gay is an identity which can be concealed, whereas blackness and femaleness can't be concealed. But there's no reason why it should be concealed, and Major Rogers' own history of campaigning against DADT as a gay man certainly suggests he didn't think it should be.
the leader of the African-American gay community
Did they all get together and have an election or something?

Yes, black ministers and black people, like white ministers and white people, can be homophobic, sexist, anti-Semitic etc.--just as gay men can be sexist, women racist etc.--which shouldn't surprise anyone; those prejudices are all historically present in mainstream American culture after all, and no one lives under a rock.
 
financeguy said:


Actually, there's a fair degree of evidence backing up Diamond's point that many African American Ministers disagree with the gay rights movement trying to align themselves with the struggles of Black Americans in the past.

I understand that, but honestly that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

There were many black men that didn't agree with women's rights, and many women that didn't believe in race equality, does that somehow weaken the argument? No.
 
diamond said:

I say he's moved on to greater things and if he did look down on us he would wonder why you're so angry and tell you not to be-that life is too short


Cut the crap diamond. Because "you don't" I am "angry". Some things are well worth getting "angry" about. Stick to the topic and please leave your assessments of my emotional state out of it-and you have done that numerous times.
 
martha said:




I'm glad you can channel Dr. King. You should have a reality show about it.

You do know that Mrs. King fully supported gay marriage, right?

Clearly she did not know the guy!!!!!


On a side note, my point for the thread is that it should not matter what your sexual orientation is, you should be who you are and be able to serve in the military. Period.

I wonder if the soldiers he saved worried that it was a gay soldier that saved him. And all this talk that he was not open about his gayness - is shite - because he had to HIDE who he was to serve.
 
Dreadsox said:


Clearly she did not know the guy!!!!!


On a side note, my point for the thread is that it should not matter what your sexual orientation is, you should be who you are and be able to serve in the military. Period.

I wonder if the soldiers he saved worried that it was a gay soldier that saved him. And all this talk that he was not open about his gayness - is shite - because he had to HIDE who he was to serve.

Matt-

Another thing about this story is, as far as I can tell this soldier--and please correct me if I'm wrong , -he unknowling step on an IED.

If this is the real case, then this would be different if a gay soldier were to push to straight soldiers out of the way from a live gernade, so for clarification's sake-please give us the actual account. What actually happened?

From researching this story all I see thus far is that he unknowling lost his life, which is still a great sacrafice to his country, so please clarify about what actually happened.

thx,

<>
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


You are...

And I could care less what MLK's neice says...

And I could also care less about your SPECULATIONS of what MLK would feel or believe. You have nothing to base your speculations on, therefore you're just reaching and projecting your own beliefs.

Show us where Dr King supported homosexual relations and abortion on demand.

dbs
 
martha said:




I'm glad you can channel Dr. King. You should have a reality show about it.

You do know that Mrs. King fully supported gay marriage, right?

Never claimed that, although one can pore over his sermons and get a clear idea of what he believed.

Last time I checked Corretta King wasn't an ordained minister and didn't support gay marriage when the Rev was alive.
Let me know if I'm mistaken on that one.

Actually, there's a fair degree of evidence backing up Diamond's point that many African American Ministers disagree with the gay rights movement trying to align themselves with the struggles of Black Americans in the past.


Now his neice Dr. Alveda King is a ordained minister and is alive.

http://www.kingforamerica.com/

I will take her word on her interpretation of Dr King's teachings over the wistful thinkers of FYM.

<>
 
Back
Top Bottom