Will We Wait Until Another Gay Sailor Is Murdered?

Last week a 29-year-old gay sailor was found shot to death at a guard shack at Camp Pendleton. The question that immediately rose to the minds of gay advocates who remember the anti-gay murder of Private First Class Barry Winchell exactly a decade ago, was whether Seaman August Provost was killed because he's gay.

While human rights activists have worked to ensure a full investigation, the Navy has downplayed the role of Provost's sexual orientation, saying there is "no evidence or information that suggests this is a hate crime" and that it has "no indication that there is any tie to what may or may not have been his sexuality."

To which it must be said: of course the Navy has no evidence about Provost's homosexuality or about what links that may have had to his death. The military does not allow the Navy to have evidence of either, under its "don't ask, don't tell" policy, the fate of which is now being debated in Washington.

Provost's death is Exhibit A for why this policy should end now. According to family members, Provost complained in the months leading up to this death of being harassed because he was gay, but he was unwilling to complain to authorities for fear that his own sexuality would come under suspicion and his job could be threatened.

Observers are wisely awaiting further details before concluding definitively that Provost's death was an anti-gay hate crime. But here's the rub: It doesn't matter. We already know that "don't ask, don't tell" causes anti-gay harassment. It does this not only in green-lighting anti-gay sentiment -- the law states that the presence of gays and lesbians is an "unacceptable risk" to the good order and discipline of the military, thereby declaring them a threat -- and not just by barring gays and lesbians from speaking up to challenge negative assumptions and stereotypes about them, but by discouraging victims of harassment or abuse from talking to commanders about the problem. If they do, they can be kicked out.

This is exactly what happened in the case of Barry Winchell. On July 5, 1999, Private Calvin Glover took a baseball bat to Winchell's bed, and bludgeoned him to death as he slept. The motive was revenge for losing to Winchell in a fist fight, in which he was derided by peers in the hypermasculine culture of the Army for having "his ass kicked by a faggot." When Winchell was pronounced dead, his skull had been cracked open, his eyes swollen shut, and his face beaten beyond recognition.

Winchell's murder was preventable. Winchell had been the target of daily anti-gay taunting for months leading up to his murder. He was denounced as a "queer," a "faggot" and a "homo," and was repeatedly threatened with violence. Yet Winchell told a confidant just before he was killed that he feared expulsion if he spoke up about his mistreatment. Subsequent investigations found that his base, Fort Campbell under the leadership of Major General Robert Clark, tolerated a climate of rampant anti-gay harassment and poor leadership. Then-president George Bush felt Clark was doing a heckuva job and rewarded his leadership vacuum with a promotion to the Army's third-highest rank.

The evidence that the current policy exacerbates anti-gay harassment is clear. When "don't ask, don't tell" began in 1994, reports of anti-gay harassment shot up; they
targeted not only gays but straights -- often women who did not conform to male expectations of proper gender behavior, or who rebuffed or complained about unwanted male attention. Notably, when the gay ban was lifted in Canada, reports of harassment against women dropped by roughly half. Even Charles Moskos, the chief academic architect of "don't ask, don't tell" co-authored an article after Winchell's murder explaining that gay troops "fear reporting harassment and assaults" because their jobs will be put at risk, and that the results of his own policy were "insidious." The policy has also kept gays from reporting and testifying against murder suspects because doing so would involve revealing their sexuality. So the gay ban blocks the prosecution of heinous crimes that affect more than just gays and lesbians.

Of course, some people will say that the evidence of anti-gay harassment in the military is exactly the reason not to lift the ban. They say this shows the military is not ready and cannot handle gays in their midst. Time Magazine, for instance, writes that Provost's death "has raised new questions over the readiness of the armed forces to accept openly homosexual personnel."

Nonsense. Everyone knows gays are already there -- and they're already serving openly, just not, in most cases, open to the military bureaucracy. Three quarters of service members say they're "personally comfortable" around gays, and two thirds say they know or suspect gays in their unit. More to the point, driving harassment underground is the worst possible thing you can do in cases like these. Lifting the ban would allow those who are threatened by anti-gay harassment to confront their perpetrator or inform authorities without fear of retribution. And it would let witnesses and friends speak up too, a critical means in any community of enforcing the rules.

It's circular logic at its best to say we shouldn't treat gays equally because the military doesn't treat gays equally. And it's an even sorrier excuse for leadership to hear from our nation's moral watchdogs that equal treatment should be expected to result in violence. This is just what former Senator Sam Nunn did in 1993 when he said that lifting the ban would create "very emotional feelings" and that if things changed too quickly, "I fear for the lives of people in the military themselves." Conservative Christian groups joined him in opposing openly gay service by saying that straight soldiers would "avoid, stigmatize and harass soldiers whose 'gayness' is revealed." "Leadership" like this can become a self-fulfilling prophesy, leading to the very results that are feared, especially in the military, which is a hierarchical institution where the climate is set from the top.

We don't yet know the circumstances of Provost's death. But is there any sense at all in waiting until another service member is murdered before something is done to end this madness?

 

Comments

[carsntrucks]

This is ridiculous. Overturning DADT isn't going to end bigotry against gays and lesbians, and it's really not even for the gay and lesbian servicemen and women. It's for the civilians who think we can (and should) social engineer tolerance in the military the same way we do as civilians.

If DADT is overturned, it needs to be because it doesn't serve the military as a whole; not just to appease bleeding heart liberals who can't fathom intolerance against anyone but religious people.

And I don't think we need to use the gay and lesbian servicemen and women in the military as test subjects. Who knows how far some people are willing to go? Why risk them doing that? Sure they will be discharged and thrown in prison, but what about that person's life?

[chaya]

"Conservative Christian groups joined him in opposing openly gay service by saying that straight soldiers would "avoid, stigmatize and harass soldiers whose 'gayness' is revealed.""

I'm always amazed by how "Christians" can pretend to be loving, caring people following Jesus at the same time they are demolishing the civil rights of other people.

God Loves You, they'll say as they aim the cannon at your chest.

[carsntrucks]

There is no civil right to serve in the military.

[Kevin M]

Just to clarify. Gen Clark was Commander of the base from 1998-2000 with the incident happening in 1999 while Bill Clinton was the president. He was promoted in 2003 by Pres. George Bush following a the Department of Defense exonerating him along with the Senate Armed Forces Committe. In the article it reads as if Pres. George Bush immediately promoted him based on his alleged hatred of gays. While a vast majority do not approve of George Bush's job handling the country, do not try to strategically place him in articles in order to gain favor of your views.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

Rights aren't given to minorities, they are demanded, and fought for in bare knuckle fights.
Obama administration demand an investigation, or get the hell out of our way.

[madatnewsmedia]

That's very adult-like behavior! There's no way that repealing DADT will stop this kind of violence against gays and lesbians! I don't know if this is the same case, but wasn't there a case where a young man was killed, because it was perceivedl that he was gay! I think a lot of you are missing the point. I think letting the world know that you are gay or lesbian will only cause a lot more violence than you can imagine. Allowing someone to be openly gay or lesbian will not change the views of those who dislike gays and lesbians.

[LynnW49]

If adult behavior means thinking and making fact-based arguments, then you've missed the mark yourself.

"Allowing someone to be openly gay or lesbian will not change the views of those who dislike gays and lesbians." 1) One is not allowed to be gay. One can, or cannot, be allowed to be open about BEING gay. 2) Surveys indicate that attitudes toward gays and lesbians become MORE tolerant when people actually know gay people, and this is cited as one of the reasons for the huge upswing in support among young Americans who have grown up in a world of many more "out" gay people: "Among the strongest supporters for family rights, such as civil unions, gay marriages, and adoptions, are young people who say they know a gay person" http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=162244]. "And once straight people realize how many of their friends and relatives are gay, they’re more likely to be supportive of gay rights." http://www.newmajority.com/gay-marriage-why-now//]
3) You must have missed the part of the article where this -- "The evidence that the current policy exacerbates anti-gay harassment is clear -- is explained.

[CreekCM]

"It's circular logic at its best to say we shouldn't treat gays equally because the military doesn't treat gays equally."

I really agree with your whole article, and especially this line. I think that laws go a long way in sanctioning or not sanctioning certain conduct, and "don't ask, don't tell" appears to say it's "wrong to be gay" rather than "it's none of my business if you're gay."

When I think about the fundamentals of the gay issue, it really boggles my mind because IT REALLY SHOULDN'T MATTER how someone else lives his life. I can only attribute this fear and discomfort to lack of exposure (even some of my very liberal friends find it difficult to see two men kissing -- although, it's a different story if it's two attractive women). Hence, the first step to positively influence gay rights is to change the laws. When something is illegal, it says to the public, "hey everyone thinks this is wrong" (e.g., weed v. alcohol).

In any event, I hope that this protocol, due to its "insidious" results, gets revoked soon.

[texterdexter]

Gay servicemembers should voluntarily "out" themselves en masse and leave the armed forces. Now. They are fighting unnecessary wars started under false pretenses by liars and thugs, their country will not even grant them equal rights, and they serve in a military increasingly dominated by Christian fascists. In addition to the considerable risks they face as soldiers, they face further risk of electrocution or other fatal mishaps due to shoddy work and procedures by private contractors and murderous animosity from fellow soldiers.

They are not protecting my freedom by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudis and they were here on visas granted by the US Department of State. Get out of the delusional world ruled by American fundamentalists and come back to the world of reality. This country has no respect for you. Let the law work in your favor for a change: get out while you can.

[LintLass]

There's really no 'in gay servicemember's favor' *about* DADT: getting a not-honorable discharge for honorable service can cripple future prospects. Not to mention that, though gay translators and other critical types may get booted, gay infantry and the like have been known to, under a Bush administration, anyway, get their futures taken away by DADT, then 'stop-lossed' to have to finish out their combat tours anyway.

Which I think gives the lie to the idea that gays in the military are that bad for missions or 'unit cohesion' if the rule is used only to punish people for being of a minority, but still force them to fight.

What's needed is for more parents of soldiers, straight *and* gay, to pressure the Pentagon to remove this oppressive and dangerous policy.

[UberReaganite]

So every time a gay dude gets whacked its certainly a hate crime? Normally robbers, murderers and pissed off lovers would never randomly or personally target gay people just like they do heteros? Yes, that does sound stupid doesn't it? Your assumed gay victim rant is very sad. Its the same as saying every black person is that is murdered is killed by the KKK or by white people, utterly ridiculous. It weakens your position.

If you want to rationalize your personal and emotional objections to the dont ask, dont tell policy with any credibility you need some actual facts not Emo rants

The policy doesnt generate the hatred. The bigots were always in the military and in the civilian community LONG before dont ask dont tell and I fail to see how allowing openly gay people flaunt their gayness in military uniform would REDUCE the number of bigots or hate crimes in the world. Why would it? Quite the opposite.

Gays are allowed by law now to be gay in the military where once it was outlawed why isn't that enough? I guess you wont stop till every barracks is Feng Shui'd and every military toe pedicured....you relentless thavages!

[Brainoverbraun]

You are completely wrong. Of course this is a policy issue. You treat your military like high school instead of insisting that the men and women in your military act like the adults they are supposed to be. Don't ask, don't tell.....sounds like grade 9 to me! Why not just expect that adults will treat each other with respect and consideration just like the rest of the world treats each other. It they can't do that should they really be armed and sent abroad to represent the nation???

[LynnW49]

Right. Jim Crow laws didn't foment racism. Denying African Americans the vote didn't increase prejudice. Separate water fountains, hotel rooms, bus seating, rest rooms, and worse, actually prevented violence against African Americans. Being unable to go to the police with information about race-based attacks did not help to perpetuate this violence.

"I guess you wont stop till every barracks is Feng Shui'd and every military toe pedicured." Right again! The case of the gay soldier besting a straight man in fist fight was no doubt a lie because we all know that gay men can't fist fight.

Really. Nurture your stereotypes. Stay in grade 9. That might give you some comfort when the worst happens--that is, when gays are treated equally. And it will happen.

[LynnW49]

My reply was meant for "UberReganite", though it sickens me to type such a name.

[OlongapoEd]

People who sneer that homosxuality is "an unnatural lifestyle" are a large part of the problem. They do so much to create the mentality that leads to what happened to Provost. I could easily argue that the military itself is "an unnatural lifestyle", but that is another discussion. And for the record, it is straight people, nearly all of them male, who routinely and at inordinate length and with gruesome detail, discuss their sex lives. and they obviously think that doing this is a *very* good thing indeed. In fact, those who do so, think that it is a very good thing and are very proud of themselves.

[OlongapoEd]

I should clarify that when describing who discusses their sex lives, I am speaking of the military.

[Skepticat]

In the military the brass at the top set the tone for what is acceptable regardless of what appears in print. If they favor fundementalist subversion of constitutional separation of religion from state to occur as seems rampant at the air force academy - it will happen. If events like "Tailhook" are glossed over as "boys will be boys" instead of felony rape - you then have tacit approval for bad behaviour. If gay bashing is OK - gays will be bashed. If nobody intervenes some one will eventually get killed. All branches of the military have their own police force and investigators - many are very good at their job, I've met a few. However if the brass are indifferent to correcting a problem - the ability of the underlings to fix it are limited. Cleaning house is probably long overdue.

[CrzyRussell]

Gay bashing and sexual harassment is STRICTLY prohibited. EOC complaints are damaging and most people, in my 14 year experience, went out of their way to have complaints lodged against them. That being said, the military is reperesentative of America so there will be a few bad apples just like any other profession.

I wouldn't prejudge all because of a few and I wouldn't jump to conclusions in this case, either. Just because a person who is in a protected class is killed doesn't automatically make it a hate crime.

[CrzyRussell]

CORRECTION:

"out of their way NOT to have complaints lodged against them"

[JBoy]

How did the killer know Provost was gay if he didn't tell?

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

Provost's murder demands an investigation comparable to TAILHOOK rape cases. Every one up the chain of command no matter what their rank or length of service, needs to know their careers are DONE if they have any hand in a cover-up. Public hearings will make sure the toughest questions are asked by Congress of anyone involved in the Hate Crime.

NEVER AGAIN!

[edwarvir]

How about if people just follow the Sixth Commandment.
ife is a precious gift and " YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE A LIFE"
EXODUS 20:13 . You don't need a DADT law for that.

[truthartbeauty]

how about people just grow up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sippewissett]

The Navy trying to pretend this is not a hate crime flies in the face of a pattern of hate acts in the military, including a horrendous rate of rape against women in the Navy (and other armed forces). It's a "dirty little secret" that the military is full of such acts, but when you've got a large group of men stoked on testosterone and adrenalin, watch out. This latest crime is sad and should be solved if the Navy wants credibility for safeguarding its own.

[ReelBusy]

There is a big Christian core of Officers in the military that tolerate this behavior.
I do wonder what their God will say to them in Heaven when he asks about this.
And what will they say to their God?

[BumpyKnight]

So glad I am that gays in my extended family need not hide.
I wish I knew a way to share this gladness with some that are less fortunate in that area.

[mergina]

If every gay and lesbian were to pull out of the military right NOW, it would be left in chaos, tragically damaged. STOP THIS RIDICULOUS POLICY NOW. Whether you realize it or not, at least 30% of the military is either gay or lesbian and most hold key positions.