Political Punch

In response to Mark in Florida. There are very few super militaries in the world to begin with. But there are many countries with very efficient and proffessional militaries that are entirely open to gay service members. Australia, France, Spain, Canada, UK, Israel, Italy, most of Scandenavia, South Africa...the list is very long.

I think the editorial decision to leave out his orientation is a way to try to make him look his best. It says about the editor than the man who served his country. The soldier looking his best means the soldier is straight posthumously.

If it was a toss up for the WP, is he gay or not gay. They could and did find out the answer from his family, friends and colleagues.

They chose to go the other way out of *respect*. I think it is easier for straights to ignore that inconvenient fact. They should do better if this soldier sacrificed for his country, served in the military who doesn't want him to be openly gay, and chose to let it be known to his loved ones that he was a gay man.

When faced with an editorial choice, they went the wrong way. If he knew who he was, the rest of us need to get over it whether the soldier is alive or dea.

Add to that the UK. Of those military enlistees I have had the honor of talk with, none were bothered about serving their country side-by-side with a gay man or a lesbian. What they were more concerned with was SERVING THEIR COUNTRY. Additionally, they were more concerned with whether that person would "have their back" and pledge to have theirs in times of need. Sounds like the higher-ups are more pre-occupied with sexual orientation than the men and women of combat. Maybe it is they don't want to be caught in that cruise area park across the street from the Pentagon I heard about from my gay Virginian friends who slug it from Pentagon City every morning.

How about Israel, you nimrod? I'd say they have a pretty good military.

A hero by military standards regardless of sexual preference. Can anyone tell me though of a powerful military that has openly accepted gays and still remains the world's super-military??

Sexual Orientation has no place here, when someone dons the uniform he is a Marine, armyman, Airforce and so forth, what orientation he has should not be mentioned nor asked about!

What does it have to do with him being a hero!!

Major Roger's immediate family is deceased. The Washington Post deferred to the judgment of a cousin (a self-proclaimed "best friend") who didn't know he was gay and to a former college roommate(also straight). It appears, however, that Major Rogers was not one to hide while he was alive and I doubt that he would appreciate being made to hide after his death. This man was a hero. Would it cost you so much to allow gay people a hero?

Sounds like the habitually tone-deaf Howell actually got one right for a change.

If you read the Post's editorials you would have to conclude that Liberace was straight.

In this case, the media was complicit in enforcing the military's discriminatory policy. It is important for the public to know that despite this injustice, gay folks serve with distinction like Major Rogers did, who made the supreme sacrifice protecting his fellow servicemembers. It is also important to know that active duty military, even those serving in dangerous posts actively oppose Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

After all those years of serving selflessly, Maj. Rogers deserves a legacy that will help change people's minds about the policy he opposed and lead to its abolition.

In response to "US Solider | Mar 31, 2008 2:26:44 AM", your remark "...will my obituary mention that I was heterosexual? No. It... So why would we mention the orientation of someone who was gay?" If you had a Gay friend or child, you would understand.

Your obit wouldn't say anything about being heterosexual because it's assumed that you are. But to be a Gay soldier, and DIE for your country, the same country that denies you equal rights everyday... in my book, THAT is a true hero! He fought for the same people that wouldn't stand up for him; that say GLBT people are LESS than deserving of Human Rights, Equal Rights! To be slapped in the face by your own government, and then go to war to protect said powers, that's more of a hero than most people will ever be, or even understand.

But to deny his sexuality in death when he fought for his rights is just another slap in the face. Maybe someday, this country will understand it's what's in someone's heart, not in his/her bed that decides the quality and worth of the person.

I think this article references the death of a very honorable man and soldier! Period! Has no place on a political blog.

I would feel certain that family and friends have a very good idea as to how he would wish to be remembered. That is where references to his life should originate.

His obituary should follow what they know he would have preferred.

Not mentioning Maj. Rogers' involvements in lobbying against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", did Rogers' a gross disservice. There would have been no violation of Roger's privacy. Rogers' was dedicated to working for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Mentioning this, along with the comments of his friends and his military commanders, colleagues, and his outstanding service record would have provided more critical evidence of the bigotry of the military's policy, a policy that Rogers was active in seeking to overturn.

Adding this dimension to the story of Maj. Rogers' life would have honored him. Instead, The Washington Post dishonored him by distorting the image of both his life and his values for equality for all people. The very values Rogers' fought for not only in his private life but as a serviceman the values for which Rogers' ultimately gave his life.

Bill Clinton has been much wiser than we people given him credit. His "don't ask don't tell" pushed the topic to the forefront. It probably ultimately led to his political assassination, by the right wing republicans. But his approach of given the public what they can stand at the time was brilliant. He knows, shoving it down people throats, is the reality of politics and most of the republican right wing.

Bill Clinton deserves credit for Federal departments adopting non-discrimination clauses in the 1990s.
Many other equality acts. Yes, I'm gay, headed back to Iraq in two weeks, for the third time. RIP Major!

If he was, he was. If he wasn't, he wasn't. Who cares?

As a Soldier with 13 years on active duty, it just doesn't matter.

But I'm struck by this thought, if I die on the battlefield, will my obituary mention that I was heterosexual? No. It might mention loved ones, but not my sexual orientation. So why would we mention the orientation of someone who was gay? The short answer is that we shouldn't, unless that person made that a focus of their life before they died, in some grand way. And this officer didn't. He lived the sexual portion of his life quietly, and with dignity, as do most of us.

So then changing the characterization of his life's work from "Intelligence Officer" to "Gay Activist" is an unfair change to the quality of the life that he lived. At it's worst, this is an example of an activist using someone else's death for their own purposes, which is unfair in all circumstances. It's especially unfair to the man who died. He was a Soldier, and kept the rest private, and that is as it should be in death as well.

"Don't ask Don't tell." Was a compromise that allowed gays to serve in the armed forces. At least Clinton was trying to chip away at the gay bashing and banning that was going on within all branches of the service.

Like civil unions instead of marriage it is the sad political situation that gays have to accept in an America that is working daily to limit their rights.

Gay or whatever, anyone who gives their life for Country and for others, is a hero. All heroes should get their thanks and respect from the whole Nation. I think it would be right to say he was gay for the very reason it would help to show the bigots and haters that gays, like any other person called upon to serve their Country can do so in an honorable and heroic manner.

The "Don't ask, don't tell" is far better than what the service had before. Before, you were guility until proven innocence and guility meant even if one unknownly associated with a gay person, they too had to be gay and if one patted a person of the same sex on the back or gave them a hug, one would be suspected and stood a chance of being inspected by the CID which meant one could be awaken in the middle of the night and taken for a drive or harrased until one gave in. There have been many young people who were treated in such manner and ended up with undesireable discharges. The only right policy would be no policy and just allow everyone to serve without poking their noses in the private lives of people.

Gays have fought, been wounded and have been killed in defense of our country. They have done so, not to defend a social cause, but rather as patriots who have heeded our nation's call to duty. The facetious argument from the establishment military upholding the separation of gays from service, citing the destruction of camaraderie is exposed for the lie that it is. If we can train our citizens to kill in defense of our country, is our military so ineffectual as to not be able to train our soldiers to disregard an aspect of private life?

The snickering and snide comments are silenced every time a gay soldier dies in combat and we all realize that he does not bleed pink but RED; that his sacrifice defends the right of his own countrymen to hold a contrary view; and that his death upholds the rights of religious chauvinists who consider him damned to hell.

In life he should not have needed to inform the world of his orientation… but unfortunately in death, this private aspect of his life should be a matter of public record to remind us that respect of persons is a right accorded to all in the United States and not to the select few.

This is an American Hero, AND he was gay. Why would it not be relevant, in that his struggle was for Equal Rights, and he gave his life for his country? We honor people of all races, all genders, all creeds for their heroism; why should we not honor a gay American soldier, who served with honor, and made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom and equality? It seems to be an act of censorship to suppress the fact that he was a gay hero; especially when society is quick to find fault with gay persons, and perpetuate the stereotype of weakness, falsely attributed to GLBT persons. If others don't know the courage and sacrifice made by GLBT persons, then they are being sheltered from the truth, and theirs will be a self-fulfilling prophecy that attributes only negative characteristics to their brothers and sisters in arms, b/c that is all they know. I believe that we should honor all of America's heros, not just some of them.

Why don't you Obama supporters get it?
She had to support anything her husband signed while he was the President.
She plans to abolish "don't ask, don't tell" and allow anyone who is brave enough to serve our country she thinks should be allowed to serve it, on this issue she always uses the same quote..."you don't have to be straight to shoot straight"

Reading the Post piece suggests necro-exploitation: "A gay group tipped The Post that there should be a story saying Rogers was the first openly gay soldier to die in Iraq."

How the heck would "a gay group" actually KNOW that -- or reasonably conclude that "incontrovertible homophobia" was in play at the Post?

Making a sexual cause celebre of a dead guy who wasn't "openly gay" with his own family certainly DOES seem, as the cousin suggests, "self-serving".

Reading McCain's economic agenda and listening to his speech, it appears that the problem with the last eight years is that we haven't seen enough tax breaks for the wealthy, that economic royalism hasn't been pursued with sufficient vigor, and that the middle and working classes haven't been stiffed sufficiently.

It's just sad people can't be who they are.

Obama could have this thing wrapped up now...all he has to do is get the supers delegates to back him...but he hasn't. He's already given the supers more than three times as much money as Clinton has...

If ending the race is so important to the party, why haven't the supers just decided to end it? What are they waiting for?

...it's what we're all waiting for....the unknowns about Obama.

not politics