I should start with a disclaimer — when I respond to articles about a specific topic, I tend to express my own opinion on the issue rather than critique the other writer’s opinion.

However, I recently read Brian Dale Teal's "No, Your Flag Is Not Equal To The American Flag" for Jacksonville State University’s Odyssey team, and was absolutely baffled by his argument that the gay pride adaptation of the historical photo that captures Marines raising the American flag on Iwo Jima, is disrespectful to the men who fought for our country. One of the aspects of Teal's argument that I find most disrespectful is that he believes he has the ability to rank two completely different, but significant conflicts in history. Simply because one affected people on a broader scale than the other does not diminish the importance or the struggle of the other.

Before I go further, it is important to acknowledge the context surrounding the photograph. Photographer Ed Freeman's gay pride adaptation was taken over a decade ago, and began circulating again in 2015 after the Supreme Court passed legislation that legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Additionally, it is not the only adaptation of the photo. However, unlike its adaptation for Ol' Glory Beer or the Hard Rock Café, it celebrates the perseverance of a demographic that has historically experienced marginalization, including in the military.

The aforementioned marginalization brings me to my first point, and that is highlighting Teal's early statement, which is that the "statue is a tribute to [the Marines’] sacrifice for our entire nation." I would like to remind Teal that despite the bravery and unthinkable sacrifices made by these men — as well as many women and children — that they were not fighting for "our entire nation." If they were, then that would imply that everyone was treated with equal regard and respect, and were granted equal rights of expression. While it may be true that World War II changed how many socio-political issues were viewed, and opened a wider, albeit brief, window of opportunity for gender and sexual minorities, it would be a gross misunderstanding of history to say that every life was regarded as "worth fighting for."

"So please, take your pride flag and by all means, hang it off your porch, but don't use it to disgrace history."

Despite the inclusion of women and homosexual men in the military during that era, it was not done with the belief that these groups were considered equal in a society that blatantly assigned higher value to white, heterosexual males. Rather, they were viewed as able-bodied individuals who were willing to fight and die for their country, even if their country would not do the same. More so, these men were allowed to be part of something larger, and temporarily have their sexuality overlooked, so long as they were silent, in an environment befitting of the Clinton Administration’s 1994 military policy, "Don't ask, don't tell," nearly five decades later.

Likewise, Teal's "suggestion" to “hang it off your porch" is heavily suggestive of "you can live your 'lifestyle', but ‘not in my backyard.'" Furthermore, any foundational U.S. history course teaches that despite temporary turning points for social and political life during any major war, life would eventually "return to normal." So while Teal may be under the impression that our military was fighting for the rights of our nation, those rights only extended so far. Additionally, for those who had existing rights, they could exercise them to perpetuate the stigmatization and oppression of sexual minorities, which resumed in more severe forms once the U.S. entered peacetime once again and the military no longer had any use for these men.

"Our heroes didn't run into battle for gay rights, they didn't run into battle holding the pride flag either."

Teal's timeline events is actually correct here. The rainbow flag became the symbol for the LGBTQ community in 1978, designed by the late San Francisco artist, Gilbert Baker. Moving forward, while also looking at the contemporary significance of Teal’s statement, it is still correct to assert that the men who fought bravely to protect the country we call home absolutely did not fight for all those who suffered at the hands of the National Socialists. One thing that became clear to me during my studies abroad is that every country views history differently. Despite WWII beginning in September 1939, it would take over two years and a military attack closer to home for the U.S. to start considering it a priority. Before that, the U.S. turned away the MS St. Louis, a German ocean liner that carried over 900 Jewish refugees from Germany in 1939, sending many of them to their death. Still later, homosexual victims of the Holocaust were not acknowledged as such by Germany until 2002, and today, the Trump Administration has removed LGBTQ people from the 2020 census. So, no, our country’s heroes didn’t fight to pave the way for LGBTQ rights — it was up to the community itself to do just that.

"You say it's for a fight for your cause, but you didn't go through bullets, blood, sweat and hell for your cause the same way these soldiers did."

Let me take you back into history one more time to an event that I am certain many have heard in passing, even if they did not come across it in their history textbooks: the Stonewall Riots. While the legality of the police raiding New York gay clubs is not in question, the morality certainly still remains the primary issue. It was not the first time that the community was targeted and harassed — it goes back to my earlier mention of life “returning to normal” after WWII, which included the Lavender scare, in reference to the "witch hunt and the mass firings of gay people in the 1950s from the United States government." Essentially, the "good old days" — that arguably inspired the ever-objectionable “Make America Great Again” mantra — saw the end of “semi-tolerance” toward the LGBTQ community, and instead launched anti-gay crusades in towns and cities across the U.S., which included keeping a close eye on "gay establishments." Fast forward to 1969, the crowd of onlookers on the street may have thrown the first bottle when "three drag queens and a lesbian were forced into the paddy wagon." However, the systemic oppression that they encountered in their daily lives, mirrored in the lives of those decades before them, called for a strike back, not unlike our soldiers did when they saw our country’s liberties being threatened on Dec. 7, 1941.

“This historic monument is a symbol meant to bring everyone together, defacing it with another flag only segregates everyone.”

To me, Teal's above quote, and the overall feeling of the article, gives off a powerful stench of someone who might not shout, but would certainly tweet the hashtag #AllLivesMatter from behind the safety of a computer screen. I cannot speak for Teal’s overall character since I have never met him. However, his argument that we are segregated when we acknowledge our country’s history — and continued tendency — to not fight for every individual’s equality and freedom is as much a gross oversight as it is offensive.

Moreover, despite Teal’s repeated insistence that he views the LGBTQ community as valid and that their "rights as Americans are real," I cannot help but make one important connection: he helped the photo resurface two years later during Pride Month.

Perhaps Teal does not see the significance of his timing, or how it aligns with the initial homophobic outcry two years ago following the Supreme Court decision, or even the timing of the current President of the United States not acknowledging June as Pride Month for the first time in eight years. Teal may or may not recognize the significance of his own timing, but it is certainly not overlooked by everyone.