TWO’s home state of Vermont continues to make LGBT history. Vermont created the civil union, was the first state to legislatively grant same-sex couples the freedom to marry without being forced to by a court, and was the first to override a gubernatorial veto in order to pass marriage equality. And now the state is home to another first: the first military college in the nation to create an LGBT club and host a Pride Week.
According to an article in today’s Burlington Free Press, Norwich University cadet Josh Fontanez convened the first meeting of the academy’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, and Allies club (NULGBTQA) on September 20, 2011 — the very day that the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” officially went into effect. About 30-35 students regularly attend the weekly meetings, which are held in an “open, glass-walled area” of the campus center, as the school’s website takes care to mention. The group’s motto is “You Are Not Alone.”
Fontanez said that Norwich’s administrators and students have generally reacted positively, but that the group has experienced some backlash: “We still have those ones who openly say that they don’t think that homosexuality is OK, that it’s a mental disease.” He added that many LGBT cadets still don’t feel comfortable enough at Norwich to come out of the closet or hold hands with their significant other in public, and that same-sex couples who wish to share military health benefits still face discrimination.
To raise awareness of these and other LGBT issues, the NULGBTQA is holding a Pride Week next week, from March 26-31. The week’s schedule includes free anti-bullying workshops, HIV testing, and a Queer Prom, along with a keynote address from Charlie Morgan, a chief warrant officer in the New Hampshire National Guard who is battling cancer and has testified before Congress, asking them to repeal the discriminatory “Defense of Marriage Act” which currently prohibits her from passing survivor benefits on to her wife.
What Fontanez and his fellow cadets have done is incredible and inspirational. By forming the nation’s first LGBT club at a military academy and holding the first Pride Week, the trailblazers at the NULGBTQA are helping to challenge and dispel the anti-LGBT stereotypes, misinformation, and bigotry that remain in our nation’s military and create a positive, affirming climate for future cadets of all orientations and identities. Bravo, soldiers!
I think this is disgraceful. Why would you use that photo and put a gay pride flag in it? Have you no shame and no respect? Your views are personal and not everyone shares those views…however this photo stands for something great in Americam history and you have brought shame upon it. And to think Joshua Fontinez will be an Army officer in 50 days is embarrassing. I sincerely hope this follows you and someone brings it up or you are fragged by your own platoon. I have never been more ashamed to be a Norwice Cadet.
The art is beautiful. Gays defending this country is as American as baseball and apple pie.
Gee Kyle, what’s your problem? (I knew when I first saw this picture that it’d be reviled by you know who.) But, ‘disgraceful’? Really? ‘Fragged by your own platoon’? As a general rule, no one in the TWO ‘platoon’ comes with weapons to this site, unless you include sarcasm & wit. So, Kyle, are you a military nutjob or a religious netjob, or both?
The only thing disgraceful here, Kyle, is that you would dare to masquerade as one who serves, and presume to speak for anyone in the military other than , allegedly, yourself. Actually, what is even more disgraceful is that you wish death on an upstanding cadet such as Mr. Fontinez. Such animus for a brave, noble soul such as he makes you an embarrassment to America herself.
I agree with everything Kyle said minus the fragging part, that went too far. I have no problem with homosexuals in the military, I am even friends with a few. I do have a problem when you decide to put the Gay Pride flag over the American flag, that is just plain disgraceful to our country and the men depicted in that picture. How do you justify putting the Gay Pride flag over the American flag as Americans?
Let me clarify to quell some of the ignorance towards my comments. I have no problems with gays or gays in the military. I have a problem with how they go about getting some of their views across in general and yes, this is a personal view which I am free to show but all your hostility shows that you don’t allow others to speak but when an “oppressed” group speaks…they can take any means necessary. I do not wish harm on anyone involved…just that people realize their actions will have consequences when they leave the tiny, secluded world of Norwich. There are better ways to prove a point then to deface American heritage. As Americans, we don’t like when our enemies burn the American flag as a sign of hostility so how is removing that same flag from one of the most moving photos in American history any different? Would it not be the same for someone to tear down any rainbow flag they see or begin burning one in protest? Ask any other Marine, gay or straight, how they feel about changing that photo. I guarantee they will have a problem with it. I didn’t gay-bash in my comments so show some respect and don’t straight-bash me in yours.
Get over yourself Kyle. No one’s stopping you from speaking and no one was “straight-bashing” you. Where do you tools get the idea that you can just scream persecution any time someone dares to take your opinion as anything less than gospel?
Kyle, how can you say that we don’t allow others to express themselves when you’ve written two long paragraphs here? Free speach doesn’t mean that you get to say whatever you want and no one else can respond. And, I’m sorry, but if you were gay you might not feel that we “defaced” this photo–you might feel that we included ourselves in what this photo represents.
“I am even friends with a few”
AH the same old defense always comes up with these fools to reassure themselves that they are not really homophobes.
The rainbow flag isn’t “defacing” because gay people are somehow worse or anything. It’s just offensive because American men died to plant that flag on that island. An American flag. Some of them might have been gay, and those ones are as heroic as the rest in my opinion. But what united them was their country not their sexuality. Replacing that with a rainbow flag is just thoughtless.
@ DaveTheWave
I’m not defending kyle’s “fragging” statement, but let’s be serious here. There are more straight people in the world than there are openly gay people. Being “friends with a few” is really about as much as you can expect from anybody.
“I think this is disgraceful.” Not me. I think it’s beautiful. It actually honors that iconic photo.
There are all too many people who make cringe-worthy statements such as, “Our brave soldiers fought and died to preserve the cherished freedoms that America holds dear.” Then you listen to them talk more, and you realize they are referring to freedom only for real Americans: heterosexual, Christian, white good ole boys. And it becomes clear that their cherished freedoms include the freedom to relentlessly persecute the people who are not just like them – and then whine about how they are being attacked when their victims defend themselves.
Jon said “The rainbow flag isn’t “defacing” because gay people are somehow worse or anything. It’s just offensive because American men died to plant that flag on that island. An American flag.”.
If you saw a picture where someone replaced the American flag with the state flag of Kansas or some such thing you wouldn’t be talking about how offensive that is. No, you’re not claiming this is offensive because the Amercan flag was replaced, you’re saying this is offensive because you’re an anti-gay bigot.
As a gay person in the military I want to congratulate this group and the progress they are making. However, I don’t really care for the photo being altered. I don’t like it when our nations flag is disrespected. I understand the meaning behind it, but there are better ways to get your message across.
Again kudos on the progress.
Justin, putting the rainbow flag in there is not in anyway disrespectful – hand over your LGBT membership card.
First of all, this photo is protected by Copyrights from the Associate Press. I am wondering if any permissions were granted to alter the photograph in the first place. If no permissions were given, and oddly enough, no credit was given, then the photograph should be taken down. I am gay and served in the military for quite some time and I am also embarrassed to see this image butchered. That image represented a moment in American History, a moment that was cherished by many. And it represents artistic laziness. Couldn’t a photographer take a relatively new picture representing our moment in history rather than relying on someone else’s?
@Joseph — Two words: FAIR USE. Fair Use does NOT require permission, nor does it require giving credit.
As a gay service member and resident of Vermont I have to say I couldn’t be more Proud of my home. With respect to all my fellow service members and fellow veterans who have posted in reference to the Pride flag being superimposed over the national colors in the articles accompanying photo Id like to say that its really not a big deal. I don’t feel its disrespectful and I think it a little foolish to focus so much on it. It was an artistic representation meant to honor our LGBT troops not to profane the memory of those brave men or an attempt to take away the meaning of the National Colors. I feel that so much focus on this has deterred from the importance of the content of this article. I would to applaud Cadet Fontenaz and his fellow Cadets. In all honesty I would consider it an honor to serve under them.
Oh please. Get real. This is one of the more widely altered and photoshopped classical pictures on the internet (and was probably manipulated before already). There are countless parodies of it. Google it before you whine around.
@ Jon
“Being “friends with a few” is really about as much as you can expect from anybody.”
It’s not the “friends with a few” that was telling, it was the fact that Antonio felt he had to say “I am EVEN friends with a few.”(capitals mine), like this is such an unususal thing and should be applauded.
Well, good for him! (Sarcasm fully intended)
I was only attempting to level with you by saying that I am also friends with homosexual people. Clearly that isn’t enough, and nothing will not be enough to level the ground so we can talk as normal people and not a straight person to a gay person. Do me a favor and focus on key wording in this post: HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY REMOVING THE AMERICAN FLAG AND REPLACING IT WITH A GAY-PRIDE FLAG? Put it in all caps so you won’t glaze over it. Don’t attack my post, respond with some tact instead of making assumptions, try to you know…treat me equal.
@WMDKitty, Fair Use is only used when the work in question has been commented on or criticized. This photograph doesn’t qualify under the doctrine of Fair use. Its not a commentary or a critique of the original photograph, rather its a reductive image. Its an image that was taken from another person’s work (without permission may I add) and was altered to form a a composition that was intended to portray a completely different message than what the original portrait entailed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Practical_effect_of_fair_use_defense
In short, you are wrong.
Now as far as what reductive means, I would do what Madonna has prescibed..”look it up”.
Yeah, did I say it was reductive?
NO.
If anything, this image symbolizes that our military is now welcoming to ALL Americans.
How is that a bad thing?
So we’re arguing about a photo dated 60 years ago? Okay then, how about this?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11378101
*This* isn’t a retouched photo – this is the real thing.
No one gives a damn what you think Joseph.
Antonio, the fact that you say you are friends with “homosexual people” kind of makes me think you’re not.
I just said “homosexual people” due to the fact that anything that could possibly be seen as offensive towards homosexuals or gays is extremely offensive to you and others. This leads to you ignoring key points in my arguments instead of looking at the major issues, for the last time all I attempted to do was create some level of equality so we can talk about this like mature adults. I see that all you want to do is look for some personal attack that you can make on me and invalidate my argument by making me out to be a hate mongering homophobe, if you want your movement to have some legitimacy then you need to be able to look past my differences. Hey, isn’t that what you are asking our nation to do for you?
@WMD Kitty, I never claimed that you stated the photo was reductive. I claimed that the photo is reductive. Its a derivative of the original product. It violates copyright by not giving credit to the copyright holders. It doesn’t fit within the fair use rules by not giving a critique of the original photograph. The altered photo has its own message.
Frankly, if the blog author would have given credit where it was due and a small blurb of why the photo was digitally altered, I wouldn’t have had an issue.
@Priya Lynn, that is typical bully elitist commentary mostly shared among the flakes in the gay community. No wonder why this community is mired in deep trouble.
Honestly, if my opinions were not welcome, I would be banned from commenting. Now, that is something to think about.
Actually Joseph the community has never been in better shape no thanks to bigots like you. Rant all you like about fair use, your opinion is irrelevant, people will make what they want of this picture and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
@Prya Lynn How am I a bigot for stating my opinions based on factual evidence? I am not here damning the whole entire community by stating that this photo violates copyright law. Your logic simply does not add up.
And the comment itself is so ironic right after you said yourself “no one gives a damn what you think.” Its extremly bigoted in and of iteself. Its like Michelle Bachmann telling Rich Santorum not to be a religious psycho bigot.
@SPC J.T. Buck
Out of all the whining I think you understood the actual purpose of this article is the content! Not the picture, just actually read the message the author is trying to post then give your opinion. Oh and @Kyle I hope one day you learn what it means to be a good citizen and hopefully next time you post you can moderate what you say and perhaps think things through a little better rather than wishing death to someone and backing up your words with “I do not wish harm on anyone…”
Joseph, your comments have all been fact free, that’s why no one gives a damn what you think.
@Pruya Lynn Your statement “your comments have all been fact free” is nothing but based on nothing but your own opinion.
Antonio–no you said you were friends with “homosexual people” in an attempt to make it seem like you weren’t operating from an anti-gay bias. If you were really friends with gay people you would have said you were friends with gay people–if you were friends with lesbians you would have said you were friends with lesbians. Most gay men and lesbians don’t especially like being referred to as “homosexual people”. But, in any case having gay or lesbians friends doesn’t mean you’re free of bias. Why not let those “homosexual people” who are your friends know about this site and see what they think.
SPC Joseph White, “Frankly, if the blog author would have given credit where it was due and a small blurb of why the photo was digitally altered, I wouldn’t have had an issue.”
–Really? It seems pretty obvious the photo was digitally altered because it is digitally altered. It should be obvious–even if (which seems unlikely) you were unfamiliar with the original photo because the photo is in black and white and the flag is in color. Why would it have made any difference if there was a not saying it was altered? This image is famous and has been altered many times for many purposes–just like the Mona Lisa or Michelangelo’s David.
Using the picture of Marines hoisting the flag at Iwo Jima for this purpose is disgraceful and disgusting. I have no problem with gays, and would have no problem serving with them, but to defile a picture that is a point of pride for Marines everywhere and to use it for this is awful. Whoever made that picture is wrong. There is no argument, 3 out of the 5 men in the picture never left that island and now their image of bravery and heroism is using as propaganda. It’s sickening, and to see this happening to national icons gives me a sick feeling in my stomach as to where our country is going.
It is actually rather beautiful. The only reason our Marines fight is to protect freedom. The men in the picture are clearly dedicated to ensuring such freedom.
Far from defiling the picture, it capture the essence of what is great about America.
Disgusting. I do believe an Army star with the rainbow flag would be more appropriate considering the spokesperson is an aspiring army officer. oh and maybe a beer in the photo as well to emphasize how Cadet Fontanez embarrassed the corps of cadets at the 2012 junior ring ceremony because he was overly intoxicated while sitting at the head table with our guest speaker who was both an Air Force Colonel and Norwich Alumni.
Ok, fair enough. I only used the term homosexual in order attempt to be unbiased. That aside, I still have not seen a response that explains how it is justified to superimpose the gay-pride flag over the American flag. Yes, some of those marines COULD have been gay. That being said they did not fight and die for their sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or personal reason. Those marines fought and died for America, to superimpose a picture of the gay-pride flag diminishes the power of that image to only represent the gay community instead of the entire nation. I would have no problem with a current and unaltered photo with the gay pride flag and service members in it, but to take such an iconic photo and alter it is truly unacceptable. If you want this movement to gain legitimacy you shouldn’t alienate gay people by falling being the gay-pride flag, instead you should continue to act as Americans seeking to further your cause.
Antonio
It is an image nothing more nothing less. If an image has so much power then it must be destroyed in my beliefs. An image can be made at any time for any purpose to suit anyone’s desires. An image is just that an image. People hold power and if your forfeiting power to an image I pity you. Power lies in knowledge, time, and wealth and is utilized through wisdom. Not in images, not in monuments, not in stones, or statues. These things stand to symbolize our power as nations as peoples and serves to strengthen our bonds but in and of themselves are powerless. Mount Rushmore is a symbol of our power as a nation most certainly it stands as a reminder to us of great presidents past. If tomorrow Rushmore lay in rubble would we be any less powerful? Surely the nation would be troubled we would be upset to of lost one of our national treasures…. But we would still be strong our might would not be diminished and we would seek retribution of the most high caliber against those who would of done that. Imposing a gay pride flag does not diminish it’s power it merely offers support and acceptance to another group over which the american flag waves. We all live under the same flag in this nation but we are a people of many stripes and creeds. Many gay men may relate to that image. It depicts the struggles of war, and many gay men have struggled either against laws or their communities or even their inner demons to stand tall and on equal footing with our peers.
Perhaps instead of imagining this superimposition to of striped power from the image one should see it as increasing the power thereof. That someone relates to the struggle depicted therein and are proud to be American and gay. None the less… it is simply still just an image.
Thank you for the first well articulated response, I understand that the gay community had good intentions for the photo. Yet, many people just do not agree with altering this specific photo. Could the same have not been accomplished with another photo? Perhaps a photo of modern service men and women who are gay standing around a gay pride flag?
“Yet, many people just do not agree with altering this specific photo.”
A couple of trolls on the Internet is not “many people”. I skipped most of the troll posts here, but I did see the same names popping up throughout. Over and over and over again.
Free speech is free speech, which means even those not worthy of it get to exercise it. That’s the price the rest of us must pay. But seriously — this is the best you can do to be contrary?
Of course this photo isn’t sacred. Of course altering it is free speech and fair use. Of course this alteration is wonderful and reflects and expands on the photo’s original message.
We get it — you hate the homos. That is as boring as boring gets. To paraphrase another commenter, who cares what bigots think?
Of course jumping immediately to the defensive, I am clearly a hateful homophobic bigot (sarcasm for those of you who would misconstrue this). Answer me this, why could you have not put up a photo of U.S. service members with a gay-pride flag? It would have gotten the same message across right?
Antonio, a photo like this has a lot of symbolic meaning that it has garnered throughout time. This change shows that symbolism in a different way.
Antonio said “I still have not seen a response that explains how it is justified to superimpose the gay-pride flag over the American flag.”.
See, that’s where you’re deluded – no justification is needed to put the gay pride flag in this picture. To claim otherwise is to be a bigot.
Antonio said “why could you have not put up a photo of U.S. service members with a gay-pride flag?”.
That certainly could have been done but once again, there is nothing wrong with putting the gay pride flag in this photo. You only object because you’re a bigot. If you truly felt there was nothing wrong with being gay you’d have never complained in the first place. As I said at the beginning if some group had superimposed the state flag of Kansas in this photo it would have never crossed your mind to complain that that was an insult, you only made that claim about the gay pride flag because you’re a bigot.
As my forum name indicates I am straight. Actually I caught my breath when I saw the photo, and was deeply deeply touched. What it meant to me, was that the soldiers were fighting for America, we know the image of the American Flag, but with this photo showing the Rainbow flag, it showed me that they were fighting for ALL Americans, including the most marginalized citizens in our country then, and today.
Unlike those of you who were insulted, it really made me feel patriotic, that now, in OUR generation, our country is FINALLY recognizing citizens who are sexual minorities. In other words, they are worthy enough that our military fights for them also, as full fledged Americans deserving of every Liberty Right that the American Flag represents.
I imagine for sexual minorities that the Rainbow Flag has deep meaning for them. Maybe they think that they are entitled to full acceptance and can plant that flag anywhere, and dare anybody to take it down and disrespect them. That they are standing up for themselves.
In closing I would just like to say that the photo caught my breath in a good way. To me it says, “Don’t Ignore us, we are Just as American as people who are straight, we are here, we exist, you will know us by our flag.”
I recently read an article that said Alan Turing the main scientist who broke the German Enigma Code, a British man, was charged after the war with being a homosexual and that the British Govt. had him chemically castrated. As a straight person things like that do not hit my radar, but most sexual minorities know their history, the history of torture and abuse that was heaped on their gay ancestors.
I was alerted to this video which gave me shivers, this falls in the general Torture (and I DO mean literal Torture) the Gays category
http://youtu.be/rQO4e4QH2IU
Although straight, I CAN see why that flag is so very important to sexual minorities. And why they want to see their flag respected everywhere. That their flag belongs everywhere. Because it means you are respecting them.
Alan Turing video-
http://youtu.be/HkCpOWGiRPo
Antonio
“Could the same have not been accomplished with another photo? Perhaps a photo of modern service men and women who are gay standing around a gay pride flag?”
I am not the artist behind this I have no idea what went through their mind. Perhaps the artist liked that particular image. Perhaps the artist wanted to make a stir. Perhaps the artist had no idea they might be offending to some. Perhaps the artist simply didn’t care about the qualms others may have with their work.
If you want an answer to that question you must ask the artist behind it, and I unfortunately do not know who that is.
Priya I am not a bigot, I actually would be upset too if the Kansas state flag was placed over the American flag in the same picture. I don’t understand where you are getting this from, all your arguments seem to be centered around are calling me a bigot and claiming that I am deluded. Maybe you are blinded by your conquest for equality to not look around and see that maybe you are pushing things too far. Granted you are not the artist, so that is not directed entirely at you. Another thought came to my mind, if this article is about the NUGLTBQA club then why not put up a picture of them standing by the flag. I will be asking to the author what his justification for using this picture is to shed some light on the situation.
Antonio, this modified picture doesn’t hurt anyone so no justification is required for modifying it – get that through your thick skull.