What Can Stop the Gay-Bashing in the Military?

The Associated Press reported today that another gay service member was abused by the military across several years of service to his country. Petty Officer Third Class Joseph Rocha, a sailor trained to work with military dogs in the Navy's anti-terrorism, force protection, and explosive detection operations, was brutalized for more than two years at his base in Bahrain after his refusal to hire a prostitute raised suspicions that he was gay. The abuse included hog-tying Rocha to a chair and pushing him, bound, into a dog kennel full of feces, as well as humiliating him by repeatedly forcing him to simulate oral sex with another man while being videotaped.

Rocha told me that, while hazing was common in his unit, the activities he was forced to do were a direct result of the perception that he was gay, including being told by his military leadership, on videotape, to act more effeminate, speak with a higher voice, appear more "queer," and make his sounds and gestures more realistic (one begins to wonder at how "straights" in the Navy get their thrills). He said it was the "most disgusting, degrading thing that I've ever been made to do."

The military is a big place, and there are always bad apples in any large institution. Could that be the source of the abuse suffered by Rocha? In the aftermath of other abuse scandals such as Tailhook, the military eventually called for heads to roll, if only to perform accountability to the rest of society. It was a gesture meant to convey that the military understood and agreed that the behavior was unacceptable.

But Rocha's case is not about bad apples. The military doesn't even think that what happened was wrong. In fact, the military leader who oversaw and perpetrated these acts against Rocha, Chief Petty Officer Michael Toussaint, was promoted to Senior Chief following the incident, even though the military was fully aware of all that happened. Toussaint was implicated in other incidents as well, including handcuffing a female sailor to a bed and forcing her to simulate lesbian sex with another woman, also while on video. One of the women later committed suicide.

Now that the incident is getting some press, however, and following the letter by Rep. Sestak, the Navy is doing a different dance, telling the AP that these incidents "do not reflect who we are as a Navy." Cmdr. Cappy Surette assures us that, "The Navy is now looking into the handling of this situation more carefully." Now, that is, that it's been caught.

Some say that episodes of anti-gay harassment like this one are exactly the reason not to lift the ban. They say this shows the military is not ready to handle gays in their midst. But this is nonsense. Everyone knows gays are already there, and can't ever be fully kept out. They have been not just serving for centuries but are increasingly serving with the full knowledge of their peers. Two thirds of deployed service members say they know or suspect gays in their unit, and three quarters say they're "personally comfortable" around gays, notwithstanding the illusion of fierce military resistance that conservatives try to whip up around this issue.

More to the point, driving harassment underground by forcing gays into the closet is the worst possible option. Lifting the ban would allow those who are threatened by anti-gay harassment to confront their perpetrator or inform authorities without fear of retribution. Research shows clearly that writing discrimination into law or policy encourages the kind of misbehavior that Roche and others have now, predictably, endured.

"Don't ask, don't tell" singles out gay people as an "unacceptable risk" to the military. It is especially insidious because it makes gay people eligible to serve while simultaneously calling them a threat. It says to heterosexuals, "Gays are serving with you but they are a danger to your mission." It's no wonder many are used as a punching bag.

What is the answer? Rep. Patrick Murphy, an Iraq War veteran and former professor at West Point, is spearheading the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" in Congress. This is a brave mission for a young, Catholic, heterosexual representing a moderate district in Pennsylvania. But the effort will not succeed overnight. President Obama, however, has the power, through a 1983 "stop-loss" statute passed by Congress, to halt all discharges immediately by executive order, giving Congress time to debate the issue. As his political capital flies out the door in an all-out effort to reform health care, the likelihood that Congress will end "don't ask, don't tell" before the 2010 mid-term elections is quickly plummeting.

This is not an academic debate, and the lives of people like Joseph Rocha should not be held hostage to politics. The cleanest, quickest way to lift the ban and protect all our service members and their national security mission, is for the commander-in-chief to lead the way.

 

 

Comments

[sws3030]

How can you expect the Navy to stop gay bashing, when the commander in chief has failed to uphold his election promises concerning gay rights?

[SteveMD2]

America is full of homophobic hatred of gay people. Perpetrated by ultra-conservative religions that always need someone to hate, to sell their perversion of what Christian Love is supposed to mean.

DADT can be ended very quickly. There are an estimated 100,000 military gay people, who are willing to risk their lives for a country that denigrates them and denies their humanity.

We need a national military coming out day. When 50,000 gay people suddenly admitted they were gay, and demanded discharge under DADT, that law would be ended in days.

And so many more of those good Christian men and women who are their comrades would suddenly discover that people they live with, and trust with their lives are gay.

Meaning another segment of our society would come to understand that gay people are good people, worthy of respect, equality, and acceptance like all others in this nation..

And the coffin of hHte in the name of God would get another nail. And the churches that hate gay people - and make Jesus weep for the perversion of HIS Name, would be exposed for all to see.

And in the end they will preach only to the dust in the pews, and the dust of their departed.

Their buildings will become museums to teach future generations inhumanity.. While the good people of those corrupted religions rediscover the message of Jesus life - especially his only two commandments - Love God, and love thy neighbor as thyself.

[obtusegoose]

I like the idea of a national military coming out day. Like you said, how is the military going to go through the process of discharging 50,000 people at the same time? It takes months for them to deal with just one person, let alone 50,000. It would literally end DADT on that day.

[SonofLiberty1]

And I believe or at least it seems, reading some of the comments here that there may be an
equal amount of hate towards those who are not gay and who just disagree.

[seawolf77]

I'm no soldier but it seems to me if I rhought the guy could fight and wanted him with me in one I could care less what he does with his own time. Was this guy a good soldier. Or was he someone who probably can;t fight and thought the military was a free ride after soldier got gay rights.... when was that exactly. In all likelihood he got his ass beat just as much becasue he was a liberal and a democrat than he was gay. The military embodies all republican leadership principles hook line and sinker. From the destruction of the self for the whole, to the chain of command and it's sanctity, to the whole yes sir no sir BS of it all, everybody in lockstep.

[GetACluepeople]

Nothing! I've lived and served in that culture which is, to a large degree, conservative, paranoid (ask any service member about the suspicions towards anyone who simply chooses to part his hair down the middle), homophobic, with assorted closet racist sprinkled in.

Nothing will happen.

[TomInJax]

Once the military allows gays to serve openly they have treat them equally and provide protections for them against bigots. Then congress is left with a conundrum. You have openly gay men and women serving their country who have partners, and in some cases children with these partners, do you allow the partners to become dependents. If you do allow that, then why not for the general population. As a casualty of DADT, I certainly await the day that it gets rescinded. It will bring down DOMA and every other anti-gay law in this country.

[chelroms]

hmmmm.. why cant people understand equality among others...
http://www.techandgizmo.com

[csavage]

First off, this harrassment wasn't motivated by the recipient being gay, it was motivated by the recipient being powerless.
And, don't underestimate the fine edged sword anyone who's active duty and separated from their spouse has to walk. I was considered a lesbian because I didn't commit adultery while active duty, although you can get courtmartialled for committing adultery. My husband had no interest in moving back to Wichita Falls, either.

[JohnJames]

I wonder what exploits service men and women feel they have to participate in lest anyone suspect them of being gay. Could that even be part of the explanation for the various sexual abuse scandals? It always has been about people suspecting (Gee, I wonder if the guy who never talks about women might be gay?) not asking or telling and any idiot could have predicted it would be.

[SonofLiberty1]

That's a good question and is relevant to life outside the military too.
Why worry about who is, who isn't and who might be?

[ESerafina42]

This should also be a warning to all good Christian boys who don't believe in hiring prostitutes. (Incidentally, doesn't THAT count as adultery, or is an exception made?)

[WorldofTomorrow420]

"The cleanest, quickest way to lift the ban and protect all our service members and their national security mission, is for the commander-in-chief to lead the way."

THIS commander-in-chief ? What, are you kidding? I'm 100% progressive, still waiting for this "progressive" president to lead on anything.

[robert234]

From a 74yr. old heterosexual male here's the deal: Neither the issue of homosexuality, nor the killing of innocent women and children during war, nor the torturing of prisoners during war is the problem. The root cause of such evils is the very genesis of MILITARISM qua MILITARISM. It is the very nature of the STATE and the extent of Homo sapiens' evolution to date. Futhermore, the entire atrocity is supported by the failed paradigm--THEISM.

[paisleyface]

Sounds like you know your ISMs.

[hippynanainblingland]

Love your icon, paisleyface!

[menmykoko]

Agreed. Militarism needs to stop being put up on a pedestal by american theocrats. It doesn't help that millions of bibles are being supplied to the soldiers and spread around the world by the military either.

[SonofLiberty1]

If there is so much of a problem for those who are gay to be in the military, why not decide to do something else?

[JohnJames]

Lots of people go into the military because they have few or no other economic options. Others have less mundane motives. It can be a great way to advance yourself, especially if your family has little money. Gay Americans who pay taxes and are expected to abide by all the laws of this country just like everyone else shouldn't be excluded by their own government because of a trait that's irrelevant. With a name like yours I'd think that you'd oppose the power of government to discriminate against citizens that, in this country, it's supposed to serve. At any rate, this whole controversy ultimately comes down to this - Military service confers respect in our society and respect undermines bigotry. That's what the gay-haters can't let gays get a hold of - respect. Secondly, if the policy were repealed it would show that honored heterosexual American men and women in uniform aren't in fact so homophobic that they can't work and get along with their gay comrades. That too would undermine anti-gay bigotry and the haters are determined to keep that from happening.

[Dynamohum]

That name (sonsofliberty) implies racism, bigotry and intolerance. Just take a look at their comment history!! So yes, they are NO son of liberty, it is more like SON of TYRANNY.

[ESerafina42]

Oh, and maybe they have this weird idea about serving their country.

[SonofLiberty1]

Do you really believe that repealing it will solve the problem? Aren't you still going to see the hazing?

[menmykoko]

If you really understood liberty you wouldn't ask. Alas...

[Tim Ellis - Huffpost Blogger]

Gay people - not allowed to love America.


I would say that's a new slogan for the Republicans, but it's hardly new.


Actually, at this point, I don't even think you're being snarky. I genuinely believe that Tea-Party Republicans just don't quite understand the premise behind America. Disappointing, really. I grew up a Republican, and it is utterly shocking how far the party has fallen.

[valkyrie607]

Patriotism, a desire to serve. A tradition of military service in the family, wanting to be part of that tradition. Wanting to get an education. Etc.

Breaking news: gay people have the same desires and motivations as everybody else.

[overd0g1]

The only way to stop it is to only allow gays in the military. Have a 100% gay military. You may have some catfights, but no bashing will occur.

[SizeMatters]

yeah - we could have pillowfights and slapfights instead of wars

[menmykoko]

And we could finally get rid of those awful colors!

[fr33d0mhawk]

This is not anti-gay treatment. This is the Navy Hazing rituals, every sailor knows about it. Google Shellback Initiation, and see the stories. The Shellback initiation happens every time a ship crosses the equator, at which time, those who have not been hazed are beaten hundreds of times with lengths of fire hoses dipped in salt water to provide extra sting, there are many cases of simulated forced gay sex, or and anal, dressing up men as women, being forced to crawl on a non-skid deck until your knees bleed profusely while being beat with fire hoses, and the really funny part, if the hazed individual aka "wog" becomes injured in this initiation, the injured goes to captains mast for loss of pay and rank, while the captain was the officer who allowed the hazing to happen in the first place. If you do not participate, the captain will cancel liberty call, stuck on the ship, for weeks on end. Imagine how a married sailor feels about that, missing his wife and children because he refused to participate in this hazing rite. Usually, only one or two on an entire ship can withstand the ridicule and social outcast of not participating and they will be made to suffer in other ways for years sometimes. Hazing should be illegal and any captain who allows or encourages it should go to prison. Once senior officers start going to prison, this hazing will stop.

[HalfBakedSushi]

I simply can't understand how hazing - behavior as outlined above - makes a more solid, loyal, and committed military.

[aftershock]

I have several ex-Navy buddies, none of which can verify your story of hazing. It may well be true, but what you're talking about was an isolated incident not some widespread Navy ritual.

[rjmiller]

This is especially weird because it's the Navy. Does "don't ask, don't tell" apply to the "heterosexuals" on months long men-only submarine tours? It's pretty widely known what goes on down there.

[spikeykitten]

How come the article does not cite that the
"Don't ask, don't tell" policy was approved by President Bill Clinton.

[KillgoreTrout43]

That was the best he could do at the time. (against a republican controlled congress)

[JohnJames]

And he was warned by many gay activists that it was premature, that he should focus on something else less explosive like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act ( still not passed all these years later), and he didn't listen. Clinton came up with the idea of ending the expulsions on his own when speaking before a group of gay rights activists ( the adulation addict always trying to please a crowd ). In the end he made matters much worse with the phony "compromise" of DADT, if for no other reason than that now Congress is involved. The sad irony is that attitudes toward gays and lesbians have changed markedly both in and out of the military since the early 90's but Clinton's screw-up has cast a very long shadow.

[ESerafina42]

He has talked about it, and what he approved (only because he was crucified for even THINKING about repealing the ban) was NOTHING like what what it ended up as.

[paisleyface]

BHO is the Command in Chief, top dog. The buck stops at his desk. The responsbility for all the gay bashing in the military now rests squarely on his shoulders.