Hey, there! Log in / Register

South Boston parade organizer says gay group only got in because of a mistake

Allied War Veterans Council Commander Brian Mahoney writes this week that some hapless volunteer mistakenly approved Boston Pride's application to march in the St. Patrick's Day Parade, that he and other parade officials didn't know the group was gay until two days before the parade and decided to let them march anyway.

But, he continues he's going to have to think long and hard about letting them in again, not because they're gay, but because, he says, they unfurled multi-colored umbrellas in a "shocking and unauthorized" display that could only be seen as a political message even aside from the fact that umbrellas are banned from the parade.

It was innocently believed upon receiving it that they were an offshoot of “Boston Strong” and so they were sent a letter of acceptance by the parade organizer. Any report that the Council voted on or even saw the application is either a misquote or complete fabrication.

Neighborhoods: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:

Do you like how UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

property called Castle Island I'd like to sell you. Colonial-vintage historic structure, water views, parking, hot dog stand included.

up
Voting closed 0

Thanks for showing your true colors, Allied War Vets.

up
Voting closed 0

They aren't the rainbow colors!

up
Voting closed 0

More like brown and yellow, I'm thinking.

up
Voting closed 0

They should make all of their decisions as if they didn't know the group was gay.

That would be very American of them.

up
Voting closed 0

comment that he agreed to the USOC's "Your employees are forbidden to speak bad about the Olympic bid" because it's "standard legal boilerplate."

up
Voting closed 0

I spoke to Mayor Martin J. Walsh (let's never forget the "J" because of those other Martin J's out there) a few minutes ago and he told me personally that the REAL parade is THIS Sunday and no umbrellas will be allowed. I cannot believe how much the sky has fallen in since the practice parade was held. It's like The End Times came and went. We will never be the same. Those darn umbrellas.

up
Voting closed 0

Wait, umbrellas are banned from the parade? They take this too seriously.

up
Voting closed 0

been watching too many reruns of the Batman TV series.

up
Voting closed 0

No umbrellas? Well then... No Mummer strutting either!

up
Voting closed 0

you made my day :)

up
Voting closed 0

The horror!!

up
Voting closed 0

They could have been parasols, not umbrellas!

up
Voting closed 0

You'd have to be totally oblivious not to know who Boston Pride is, especially if you're holding a large public event of your own.

Also, wasn't it raining?

up
Voting closed 0

to not know that Boston Strong is just a saying, and not an actual organization. Either way, a quick check with der Goog would have set things right.

Then again, it's possible that the Allied War Veterans are so oblivious to real life in 2015 that they haven't heard of the Internet either.

up
Voting closed 0

you are closest to the truth, Roadman. I think they really didn't understand. I didn't understand why the gay folks were allowed to march until I read this.

up
Voting closed 0

raining men.

up
Voting closed 0

Are they kidding??? With all the publicity it got? I'm absolutely tired of these morons.

up
Voting closed 0

I bet those sneaky gays just weren't doing all the Gay Things like the organizers remember from their bath house days ... like, how were they to know?

up
Voting closed 0

To assume that homophobic people are themselves "in the closet" is basically just another form of homophobia. As a gay man, I can tell you that the stereotype of the "homophobe as repressed homosexual", although sometimes occurring (as does any stereotype), is still as misinformed and inaccurate as the stereotype of the gay male as always being affluent and upwardly mobile.

up
Voting closed 0

There is actual and ample science though around the idea that the most homophobic people are repressing same-sex desires, even if it wouldn't rise to a level of being considered in the closet: http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=4040

up
Voting closed 0

While it may be true that a small percentage of homophobic people may have repressed homosexual feelings themselves, far too many people use such a theory as a knee jerk across the board reaction, as if it is always the case. And it is both gay and straight people who make this hasty generalization I might add (as a gay man myself).

Swirly's post, though seeming somewhat tongue in cheek, says:

"I bet those sneaky gays just weren't doing all the Gay Things like the organizers remember from their bath house days ... like, how were they to know?"

So what is actually being criticized here? The fact that the people engaging in homophobic behavior are actually homosexuals themselves? Therefore it is homosexuals being criticized . Again, for what? For engaging in hypocritical behavior and criticizing homosexuals? For not being openly gay and living happily ever after? And "remember from their bath house days" sounds suspiciously like she is using that behavior as an insult or indictment of the homophobes-who-are-actually-gay, as a way of goading them. Criticizing homosexuals for engaging in homosexual activity, even though they are the homosexuals criticizing other homosexuals? What I am trying to point out with this bit of devil's advocacy is what a slippery slope it is to resort to the "homophobes are repressed homosexuals" mechanism. It's just too easy an answer.

up
Voting closed 0

I get what you're saying. But as a fellow gay person, I'm a firm supporter of the Frank rule here, for those in the closet or are in deep denial about their own attractions. Paraphrasing, there is a right to privacy, but there is no right to hypocrisy, not if you are advocating in the public/political sphere.

up
Voting closed 0

(Shaking fist)

up
Voting closed 0

What...did they hold the umbrellas in front of their crotches and make thrusting motions?

up
Voting closed 0

Did he say, "long and hard"? What is he keeping from the gays?

up
Voting closed 0

And I guess I don't have a dirty enough one! He didn't say it and, no, I didn't consciously write it that way because of, you know.

up
Voting closed 0

I mean, the OUTVet group fought hard to get in, then Boston Pride just dances in? I knew something had to be up.

As for the future, I see more gay and lesbian groups getting in, but I'm still amazed they let Boston Prde in, so it will be a while for them.

up
Voting closed 0

 

up
Voting closed 0

Get over it. This is 2015, and the date will only progress from there. Please join the rest of the majority of the country for which one's sexual orientation is simply not an issue. A much better discussion should be about why what is supposed to be a totally secular holiday and parade (Evacuation Day) has been turned into, of all things, a Catholic possession.

up
Voting closed 0

the Knights of Columbus ducking out of the parade while muttering darkly into their fluffily-feathered hats about "some [who] have decided to use this occasion to further the narrow objectives of certain special interests".

You are correct, Allied War Veterans Council, in sensing that we're at the cusp of history on this issue. At such moments, you have to unequivocally pick a side. If you're going to choose to be one of the Neanderthals, take your stand and stop being such a goddamned mealy-mouthed weenie about it. Who do you think you're fooling?

up
Voting closed 0

Will the KoC apologize to parade organizers for dropping out now that it was a mistake that led to all the controversy that scared the KoC away?

up
Voting closed 0

Right after they apologize for being an organization named after one of the worst people to ever visit this hemisphere.

up
Voting closed 0

How far have plans come for the Queer Community Center on Prospect Street Cambridge QCenter
http://www.lgbtcenters.org/

up
Voting closed 0

Jesus, I thought the bitching and moaning before the parade was nauseating enough - now we have to hear about after! Enough with this stupid parade, cancel it forever, who cares?

The gays should turn that thing into Halloween in the Village next year.

up
Voting closed 0

I wonder what would happen if the Allied War Veterans excluded all groups that they have issues with, then no spectators showed up for the parade...

up
Voting closed 0

Among all involved with the Allied War Veterans Council have any different points of views?... or their spouses, families have different points of views than that pronounced by the Council? Organize a Daughters and Sons of Allied War Veterans!

up
Voting closed 0

Starting to sound more like the Axis War Veterans to me.

up
Voting closed 0

Love all the intolerant comments bashing someone for their opinion. Homosexuality is not natural, we have reproductive organs because of natural selection.

up
Voting closed 0

Opinions don't have rights. People do.

The way you were naturally born is not an opinion.

BTW did you realize that thousands of species in nature practice homosexuality ... but only one has homophobia? That means ...

up
Voting closed 0

Don't get me wrong, any opinion, on either side of just about any issue, is fair game for bashing, but technically, the expression of an opinion is covered, pretty much expressly, by the First Amendment.

There are other "rights", on the other hand, are basically interpretations of constitutional rights. To give a relatively noncontroversial one, remember that the SJC, not too long ago, stated that Massachusetts' ban on tattoos was unconstitutional.

up
Voting closed 0

As a person, you have a right to express an opinion.

You just don't get to declare it valuable, unassailable and immune to strongly-worded challenge if it is a bunch of hateful tripe and scientifically illiterate bullshit.

up
Voting closed 0

You do get to declare it valuable, unassailable and immune to strongly-worded challenge regardless of its essence. I mean, were that the case, the whole climate change kerfuffle would grind to a halt. On the one hand, one has people making claims that the earth is not warming based on anecdotal evidence. On the other hand, when someone offers some kind of scientific argument that the earth is not warming, or perhaps that the earth warms and cools in cycles, they are attacked as global warming is "settled science." Same can be said about gay rights. Imagine 50 or 100 years ago trying to make the argument that the union between two women or two mean is equal to that between a man and a women and deserves equal marriage rights and you would be very forcefully argued against. Same with equality based on race (and of course race is a manufactured concept as opposed to sexual orientation) or the heliocentric view of the galaxy.

I'm not going to defend the anon's statements. I don't see anywhere where they are saying that their opinion is unassailable. I do see a hint of intolerance in claiming that there is no right to an opinion, regardless of how stupid it is.

EDIT- Swirly edited, and I definitely see her point. It works for a lot of debates, and can be used regardless of ideology. However, I wrote too much to just delete.

up
Voting closed 0

...to voice a stupid opinion. The point is that the same right that allows the voicing of stupid opinions allows the bashing of stupid opinions.

up
Voting closed 0

Opinions don't have rights. People do.

In looking at it one way, opinions actually do not exist. They are intangible. People are needed for opinions to exist, since they are held in the minds of people. Therefore, people have rights to opinions. As I point out, it is the expression that is the question.

up
Voting closed 0

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”- Isaac Asamov

Not directly on point, but it's important to remember not all opinions are created equally, especially when alleged to be grounded in verifiable fact, like the claim homosexuality is unnatural. The First Amendment and the principles that ground it allow people to say stupid things, but that's as far as it goes. It'll be an unfortunate day when we find ourself bound to give credence to everyone's stupid opinion.

up
Voting closed 0

All it says is the government can't keep you from saying a stupid opinion. It doesn't say that your opinion is valid, based on reality, or protected from ridicule or disdain. It doesn't stop Adam from deleting everything you write just because your username starts with a W if he wanted.

It is purely a promise from the government that they won't stop you from saying nearly anything.

up
Voting closed 0

People have a right to express their stupid opinions.

Adam's right comes from being the chief of this website. He is good with amendment number one, but even he has limits. In the real world, there can be harsher consequences of expressing a stupid opinion, but no one can say that one does not have the right to said opinion.

up
Voting closed 0

That's what you're not getting. If you get to say whatever you want here and Adam doesn't react in a way to squash whatever you're saying, it's not because he's upholding some morality given to you because of the Bill of Rights. He's just chosen to have HIS forum be an open air kind of place. The Amendment ONLY deals with YOU and THE GOVERNMENT and how they interact with what you have to say. You DON'T have the right to express whatever opinion you want here. You only have what Adam is willing to tolerate.

This is exactly why the parade is able to shut out gay groups if it wants. The parade is a private event using public streets. The event organizer per the Supreme Court gets to decide what statements are uttered during the parade. The government can't make them say things they don't want and they government can't stop them from saying things the government doesn't want them saying. If the parade wants to decide gay groups are not what they want to say, then that's their prerogative according to the interpreters of the Amendments, the SCOTUS.

up
Voting closed 0

and disagreeing at the same time?

The right of free speech is essential for public discourse, but yes, there are areas of conflicts. Again, the founding fathers put the right of free speech first, but at the time newspapers were a lot more partisan than even cable news networks are today. It was (and today is) understood is that, say, forcing Adam to post things against his core views would abrogate his rights to free speech or the free speech of his website. However, just like Roger Ailes could create a news division for Fox to counter perceived liberal biases with the major networks and CNN, I could create my own website aggregating news stories about the Boston area, and no one could stop me. (Of course, I would do a far inferior job.)

I would argue that yes, popular opinion could cause ideas to disappear from the public sphere, but only an act of government could offer strong sanction. The right exists, but yes, there is a difference between being able to say something and not getting some sanction for saying something. Just ask Michael Richards. His first amendment rights were never stripped, but good luck to him getting club dates.

up
Voting closed 0

I seriously hope you aren't using yours.

up
Voting closed 0

you seem to have come out of the ass end of your mother.

up
Voting closed 0

so should the parade require all marchers to go without them?

up
Voting closed 0

1) Requesting tolerance of intolerance does not lead to more tolerance in the world. Therefore, the correct answer is intolerance of intolerance.

2) My friends in California just birthed a baby. They are lesbians. Fuck your limited understanding of natural selection.

up
Voting closed 0

One of your friends had a baby. Your point would be that they both became parents.

up
Voting closed 0

If a man and a woman have a baby together, the man has nothing to do with the physical process of birthing the child out of a womb. You say the couple had a kid or gave birth to a beautiful baby boy or girl. The fact that it's two women doesn't change the fact that the one that carried the kid is the one of the two to physically bring the kid into the world. It doesn't change the fact that the couple had a kid or gave birth to a beautiful baby boy.

up
Voting closed 0

When we welcomed Waquiot Junior, I never said that I gave birth. We became parents. I became a dad. My wife gave birth. She carried him for 8 months (he was a premie.) I used to joke that my job was done, knowing full well my job was just beginning.

A man does not give birth. Only one person gives birth when a child is born. I could go on about the biology of the whole thing, but I won't. Again, the argument can be made that both women became parents, and I myself will not doubt the parenting ability of both women, but only one of them "gave birth."

up
Voting closed 0

If our marriage, as we define it, consists of 5 people, 2 dogs, a horse, some stinky cheese, the eastern half of Kentucky, and the Axiom of Choice, then do we all get to say we birthed a baby?

up
Voting closed 0

Except nobody cares how you personally define your marriage. Officially, a marriage requires two consenting parties in a single contract. So, 3 of the people, both dogs, the horse and cheese, half a state, and a mathematical axiom all have to sit this one out if you want to register that marriage with the state or get both the other two people's names as parents on the birth certificate.

Also, the northern half of Tennessee just learned about your marriage and thinks you're a two-timing bastard, so I'd be careful starting your car for a while.

up
Voting closed 0

I mean, say the child was conceived "naturally", which means the father is tangible in the lives of the two women, as opposed to an anonymous sperm donor. Say the agreement is that the father will stay in touch and help out with the kid. In this theoretical, one "parent," be it the father or the woman whose egg was not used, is the odd person out according to your rules which are the rules used in states where marriage occurs regardless of genders of the parties. How would this be fair?

Again, this is a theoretical, and therefore has little to do with the actual women you know who recently, in my words, became parents.

up
Voting closed 0

I assumed the horse was just a sperm donor and didn't want anything to do with the baby afterwards.

In many states it is legal to have more than two names on the birth certificate. You pretty much just need to spell out the expected responsibilities and guardianship up front before filing. MA included.

up
Voting closed 0

they're the intolerant ones. When will this totally unjust intolerance of bigots, in the form of using words to point out their bigotry, ever end?

Sure, we're not discriminating against homophobes in ways that deny them jobs, housing, the right to marry the person they love, or a sense of community inclusive enough to find the issue of marching in a parade laughably trivial.

But we are calling ignorant bigots "ignorant bigots", and that's clearly beyond the pale.

up
Voting closed 0

Perhaps the bigots need to take to Twitter to speak up for them selves: #NotAllBigots

up
Voting closed 0

We also have homosexuality because of natural selection. Homosexuality acts as a preventative (and benign) population break against over population. The not so benign breaks against over population include starvation from lack of food, disease from too great a density, and, I believe, even war. If homosexuality was a choice then I think there would be a lot less suffering from the destruction of over population if more people chose to be sexually attracted to their own sex.

Homosexuality exists beyond the human population. Homosexual behavior in terms of not mating with the opposite sex and yet creating bonds with the same sex are documented. If homosexuality was a choice would that mean that the venerable lesbian seagulls, and more recently, Romeo and Juliet, the homosexual swans of the Public Garden, choose to be homosexual? Do you also believe that the Earth is flat?

If the existence of sex organs absolutely equated to reproduction then all creatures would be capable of either sex according to whether there were too many males or females. It's more logical that a species be capable of changing gender depending on the needs of the environment. But nature doesn't work that way. Nature is a little more subtle where sex and sexuality is concerned. Further if nature was so absolute would hermaphrodites exist? Or do some fetuses choose while in the womb that they would like to be a bit of a boy in one way and a bit of a girl in another?

Sexuality is a little more complicated and nuanced than Tommy putting his you know what into Sally's you know where.

up
Voting closed 0

Unnatural? LOL...Winner of the Neanderthal award. Jesus, get your head of your ass and grow up.

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

perspective. I mean, who can't see that once you allow rainbow-colored umbrellas in a St. Patrick's Day parade, it's a short step from there to forcing people to marry their dogs?

up
Voting closed 0

As the umbrella's twirled they conveyed a steganographic message that hypnotically made people gay and happy. But then what is wrong with being gay and happy?

up
Voting closed 0

Aren't Leprechauns looking for gold at the end of the rainbow?

Does that somehow make them gay? Does it make gold gay?

up
Voting closed 0

The Herald talked to the congressman from South Boston (at the bottom of the article): He marched with an umbrella of his own (green) and he had only nice things to say about Boston Pride (and OutVets):

I’m not running the parade but I thought as a spectator and a participant, I thought it was entirely appropriate, I thought they carried themselves well, and I would be proud to have them march again.

up
Voting closed 0

Not the multi-colored umbrellas!!!!!

up
Voting closed 0

Rainbow Lifelong Learning Institute Boston
A Community of Lifelong Learning
The Rainbow Lifelong Learning Institute Boston offers Queer, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender seniors and friends the opportunity to build and strengthen community through educational programs and social activities
http://www.rainbowlliboston.org/

up
Voting closed 0

Boston, in theory, should have the biggest and best St Pat's parade in the US. It has forever been the worst due to this "gay" issue. Just shut it down. I've been to St Pats parades around the country, and weather aside, they all put Boston to shame.

up
Voting closed 0

How did the Allied War Veterans Council get to be in charge of the official parade? Is there another group which can better represent the Irish-American community?

up
Voting closed 0