letters | an annual controversy: St. Patrick’s Day Parade

For a way forward, look to the march that trails behind

Thanks to Mayor Martin Walsh for at least partly standing up to the Allied War Veterans Council and its Saint Patrick’s Day parade organizers (“Walsh pushes for gay groups in parade,” Page A1, Feb. 27). But I want to add two important considerations that were not detailed in the article.

One is that there is a second march, the Peace Parade, starting after the first one, that includes a large lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender contingent. There seems to be no reason for the mayor not to march in that parade.

A second consideration is that the Peace Parade consists of a possibly even larger contingent of Veterans for Peace and friends of that group, of whom I am one. Veterans for Peace have asked all along to be included. Many are combat veterans and know firsthand why glorifying war, as the primary parade does, is a bad idea. The Allied War Veterans Council has steadfastly refused, using the Supreme Court decision as a shield.


One of the Saint Patrick’s Day parade organizers refers to the need to “follow rules.” But the Supreme Court did not say that the council has to exclude groups it doesn’t like, only that it may. And so every year it essentially tells Veterans for Peace that associating veterans with peace is somehow wicked.

Eva S. Moseley