Response to 'Gay Flag Not Welcome in Parade' Blog Post

This a response to Roger Ricker's blog post . (Editor's Note: The link to Roger Ricker's blog post is no longer available as the post has been removed at his request.)

Was there actually a flag specifically for black people? For the handicapped? 's comment above "imagines" a banner or flag for various minority groups. But stepping away from imagination, what did the Media parade look like?

Were the flags and banners focused on representing the goals and ideals of minority groups or on representing servicemen and their honorable sacrifice? Obviously, the answer is the latter, and therefore Roger's Gay Pride Flag would have been a conspicuous statement of Roger's politics, not those of the men and women who have actually served.

Let's take a moment to remember that those men and women made a decision to join the military (probably before its recent changes regarding views on gay people), and that decision likely had nothing to do with their sexual orientation.

Joining the military is about a desire to serve the country and that desire has nothing to do with your sexuality. And it really has nothing to do with Roger's sexuality. In fact, it has more to do with Gay Pride than veterans, which makes it politcal.

Also, it's absurd to say that "given that the military no long discriminates against people based on sexual orientation, it is no longer 'political' to recognize gay and lesbian who serve in the military." Turn on the news, it's a hugely charged issue in our country.

So, in reality, Roger wanted to fly a flag that would have done more to represent his own views than to honor veterans. In doing so, he would have been making a political statement that would have been disruptive to the politically neutral parade (by the way, Roger, while wars are always poltical, parades do not have to be).

This, however, is not the disturbing part. The disturbing part is that after being -- seemingly politely -- asked not to do this, Roger detracted even more attention away from the veterans to himself.

His friend Ed did nothing that called for his anger and gave him a good reason as to why his flag was innappropriate. Instead of doing the polite (letalone friendly) thing and accepting the decision of the person in charge -- the one who was nice enough to invite him -- Roger childishly ("Boo!") put blinders on with only his own agenda in sight.

On a day for honoring veterans -- one of the most unanimously supported groups in the country -- Roger should have seen the bigger picture and saved his cause for another day. It was wrong to try to make the Memorial Day Parade about anything other than honoring veterans (regardless of their sexuality), and Roger's "abysmal feeling of complete and utter dread" is not justification.

Roger, if you want to make this right, apologize to Ed as publicly and dramatically as you indicted him and by extension the parade.