Death of Gay Soldier Creates Dilemma

The following question about how to handle a soldier’s sexual orientation in an obituary was recently posed on a writers’ listserve to which I subscribe. It provoked such a heated discussion that the moderator had to shut off debate. It’s worth another look here.

Help! My alumni magazine has asked me to write a tribute/obituary for a soldier killed in action just a few months before his scheduled discharge. He was gay but had kept it quiet. His partner told me that they were planning to marry after his discharge and wants me to mention that fact. But the soldier’s parents won’t confirm the marriage plan and are horrified at the idea of publicizing the relationship. Journalistically speaking, what’s the ethical thing to do?

This is an awful dilemma. Whatever you do will hurt someone at a time when everyone must be feeling a great deal of pain.

Journalists often have to balance the right of privacy against the public’s right to know. When the two principles clash it becomes a judgment call; the journalist must decide whether revealing certain facts is important enough to justify the harm that results. But I’m having a hard time seeing this as that kind of a journalism issue. There’s no public right to know here, only two sides who can’t agree on how a man should be remembered.

In fact, I’m inclined to see your problem as a diplomatic one; it’s the parents and the partner who face more of an ethical dilemma. Your role is more of a mediator, and you need to employ some shuttle diplomacy before your deadline arrives.

If the deceased soldier was silent only because of constraints imposed by his military status and if his parents knew he planned a public ceremony, then they have to decide whether hiding it now is what their son would have wanted. As hard as it may be in this time of great pain, they should think about how their son would want to be remembered, not about their own preferences. But that assumes they knew about the relationship and the marriage plan, and you don’t know that to be true.

The partner also has to think of the deceased. Presumably the soldier talked with his partner about his parents, his feelings for them, and how he felt about their feelings for his sexuality. Would he have wanted his partner to go to the mat on this or would he have wanted to make this as easy for them as possible? Thinking this way may be impossible, but ideally the partner should try.

If they are not able to reach a decision, your choices are limited. If you can’t confirm the marriage plan, you can’t report it as fact because you can’t substantiate it. You could quote the partner’s contention, but then you might have to quote the parents denying it, the worst of all worlds and one you should avoid.

Instead I think the best thing to do is to leave out any mention of the partner. The only hard fact you have is that the deceased kept the relationship a semi-secret, and I don’t think it’s right for you to reverse that without a clearer sense of his intentions or an agreement from those closest to him (the next best thing).

I suspect not everyone will agree with my choice. You can comment below.

And remember, Talking Ethics is eager to tackle your particular ethical problems. Just click here, to send us a confidential e-mail.


6 thoughts on “Death of Gay Soldier Creates Dilemma

  1. Yes, you shouldn’t report the partnership, especially if they could have gotten married but hadn’t yet. But it is a close call.

  2. As a military PAO, we would never include this information in a press release about a fallen soldier, not because he was gay, but because we would never publish relationships that were not a marriage. I’d never write, the soldier was engaged to…

    That said, now that gays can marry in many states, I would have no problem writing something like, soldier is survived by his husband, so and so. Also, if I were doing a feature story on the soldier, I would have no problem with an interview with the person who claims a relationship and publish their thoughts about the soldier.

    Gay or straight, there are people who would claim an intended marriage with a fallen soldier simply because of the potential for benefits. It wouldn’t be smart to say anything about an intended marriage unless there was solid verification, no matter the sexual orientation of the soldier.

    • You raise a good point, Mary, in mentioning the complications with benefits. I hadn’t thought about that. The most troublesome part of this for me was the disagreement between the parents and the partner.

  3. there is a time to be silent and time to talk…why doesn’t everybody mind thei rown business and let sleeping dogs sleep…every journalist etc wants to make it their business to pry into everyone else’s life to create stories to sell their proffession and paper!!! for god sake respect other people’s feelings.

  4. Bobby Turua says “respect other people’s feelings,” but whose feelings — the parents’ or the partner’s? Since the three have sincere feelings, the decision has to rest on solid verification.

    • the parents, the partner and the rest of his family including his friends. maybe it’s your trying to “help” that is creating the dilema.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s