Gold Star families press House panel to recognize "Honor and Remember" flag; some veterans groups oppose measure

Representative Michael Moffitt told the Legislative Administration Committee the bill before it, House Bill 142, reflects compromises and changes since its prior hearings and would let families and communities display the Honor and Remember flag on specified days.

"This flag can also honor veterans who weren't necessarily killed in action," Moffitt said, describing the measure as a way families could personalize remembrance for fallen servicemembers while insisting the bill would not replace the American flag.

Nut graf: The committee heard more than an hour of testimony by relatives of fallen service members and veterans27 groups. Supporters said official recognition would help families and boost public understanding of Gold Star families; opponents said the U.S. flag already serves that purpose and the proposal risks creating competing symbols.

Several Gold Star family members described the flag27s personal meaning. Patricia Bilodeau, who said her stepson Derek died in 2008, told the committee, "The honor and remember flag is very special to me personally." Nancy Marston, who identified herself as a Gold Star mother, said, "We are only asking for 3 days a year to fly this flag. Memorial Day, Gold Star Mother's Day, and Gold Star Mothers and Families Day."

Officials from the State Veterans Advisory Committee (SVAC) testified in opposition. Kevin Grady, who said he represents SVAC, said the group appreciates Honor and Remember27s work but believes "we already have the symbol that we need" in the American flag.

Committee members asked practical questions about where and when the flag would fly if the bill passed, who would have authority at the State House or veterans cemetery, and whether the measure should say "may" rather than "shall" to avoid creating an unrealistic operational requirement. Witnesses acknowledged questions about pole dimensions at the State House and whether the Veterans Cemetery controls displays there.

The committee took no immediate vote. Staff and members said they would consider amendments, including narrowing days of display or changing mandatory language to provide implementation flexibility.

Ending: Supporters said they will continue to press for the measure; opponents urged deference to existing veteran advisory bodies. The bill will return to committee work as members consider clarifications about display sites and operational language.