Don't ask - Don't tell - RIP

[Dreadsox]

[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...032103036.html

Back in the closet even in death.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...ashington.html

[yolland]

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.

[MrsSpringsteen]

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?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen

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.

[deep]

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.

[diamond]

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

[yolland]

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.

[Irvine511]

they did this to Susan Sontag.

[MrsSpringsteen]

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.

[yolland]

[diamond]

Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
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

[yolland]

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.

[diamond]

I see things from a different perspective I suppose.
I don't think he jumped on the bomb to furthur gay rights.

dbs

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by diamond

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

erm, his entire military career was about equality.

[BVS]

Originally posted by diamond
I see things from a different perspective I suppose.

This we definately agree on...

Originally posted by diamond

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?

[diamond]

Originally posted by Irvine511




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

[BVS]

Originally posted by diamond


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.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by diamond


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.

[diamond]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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/...ure/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/art...riage_backers/


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



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.

<>

[BVS]

Originally posted by diamond


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.