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?
Mario Ruiz: 5 Reasons Why I'll Be At The Gay March in DC on Sunday
Thanks to Outrage, I'm once again outraged. And inspired. And I look forward to the energy and excitement I'm hoping I'll find in Washington this weekend.
Jim David: The New Gay Apartheid
Whatever church those people do go to, they are taught hate and fear, not the Christian love I grew up with. They both hate gays and fear them.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I work with some who are homosexual in the military and have not told anyone they are. They do their jobs well and are well trained and I would hate to see any of them lose their jobs after years of service because someone decided to ask them outright if they are gay. Sadly enough there are too many who have been tossed out over the past fifty plus years with honorable records and have been trained well with our dollars for jobs no one can jump into and the "rat out" by someone who has issues of their own to have these fine americans lose their jobs. How many have been lost to this issue because many do not even attempt to go into the military over fears of being found out or being "ratted out" by someone who has their own issues? How many who dearly love their country have been tossed out by the military because they had to tell? It is not right that these loyal country loving people have to continue to pay the price of the far right and unfounded fears!!!
A few observations:
I was an AF Brat when the color barrior was lifted. At the time 'Leadership' said that it could not be done. By the time I because a 2nd John in the Army (bad eyes-couldn't fly) integration was a reality. Are there still the biggots - some in Leadership? Yes but I think most will agree that intigration worked.
Lord knows it worked too well - just look at how long it took us to get out of Vietnam. Just think how quickly we would have been out if ALL the FRAT Boys - or The One who was hiding out in the AirGuard - would have had to go and be cannon fodder because the Rumsfelds of the world were not able/willing to say what they knew to be true.
The same comments may be made concerning female Service Members. Yes, it is taking time - especially in bringing Leadership over to getting past the 'Good Ol' BOY' attitude that women are good for only one thing and when some women are justifiably worried about an efficiency report.
The same comments will be made concerning recognizing and celebrating those gay/lesbian members that have been serving ever since there was an army.
My point: Nothing will be accomplished until we stop listening to the entrenched experts (and yes, in some cases the biggots) and end DADT.
Good post and good points too. It is time to end don't ask don't tell.
ghf Why do we need to know who is and isn't gay
Soliders join the service to defend their country, not to
flaunt there sexuality.
Being allowed to be yourself and tell the truth when asked, in the military service where honor is everything, is not the same as "flaunting
Grow up, please.
Okay. From your logic it follows: Why do we need to know who is and isn't heterosexual? Let's introduce legislation banning straight men from talking about their sexual encounters with women, or about their marriages, or their girlfriends. End that flaunting!
I don't think anyone should have to pretend to be something, or someone they are not, but simple logic suggests that once they are free to admit to being gay, wouldn't that cause more trouble than now, where there is just a suspision?
I'm just asking!
In what way would it cause 'more trouble'? Do you mean 'more likely to be murdered?'
Gays have been fighting THAT since Stonewall.
I really don't think 'going back to the closet' is a good idea...
How about teaching tolerance and kindness as "Jesus" would have wanted instead of all the bigotry religious organizations spew? How about keeping state and church separate instead of allowing armed forces to distribute bibles and sanction prostelatizing?
I'm just asking?
Well, at least you are asking the question instead of asserting it as fact. Keeping everything underground is what enables the harassment and violence to proceed. Let's say that you are robbed because you had your wallet in your hand where all could see it. You are badly beaten in the process. But if you try to report the robbery and battery you will be prosecuted under the policy that says you must keep your wallet hidden at all times. Now, how does that policy help prevent attacks on your person? And how does that policy send a message that robbing and beating people like you is a bad thing?
Point taken.
The "air of intolerance" in the military in general most definitely did not *start* with Clinton. It was throughly entrenched (in many forms) in the military in 1967, and has probably always been there, in many forms. That is the unpleasant reality of the military.
This "intolerance" of which you speak is merely a distaste for what many consider to be an unnatural lifestyle.
Looks like the rethugs will want to institute DADT in the Senate "cloakroom" and the C street convent.
Well, now I know what the "C" stands for.
As long as people like the officers of the Ft. Worth, Texas police department can go into a gay bar and bash people's heads in.......t
I pray that I will see significant changes, in my lifetime, in the way people treat one another. Gay, black, brown, red, white, yellow, straight..
I have a great nephew who is gay and can't tell his parents. (ministers) He wants to join the Marines...
DADT needs to go away, just as DOMA does as well.
It amazes me that the Political Parties STILL pretend that Gay people are less than human.
The Irony is that all the politicians SUCK....
Just a minor correction and POV.
Don't Ask Don't Tell (10 U.S.C. § 654) came about in 1993, not 1994. It was signed into law by Democrat Bill Clinton after having been presented to him by the then Democratic-majority congress.
It was introduced into the 103rd Congress by a man who was a supporter and informal policy advisor to candidate Barack Obama, Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga).
George W. Bush had nothing to do with enacting DADT. The GOP would not regain a congressional majority until almost two years after DADT went into effect and would not regain the White House until nearly eight years later.
Using George Bush's name in this column only serves to distract from who the real perpetrators were, that being the Democratic leadership of the day.
Bill Clinton was commander-in-chief when Pvt. Winchell was murdered in 1999 and during the subsequent investigation of his murder. If there was an air of intolerance in the Army, it started at the top with the man who signed DADT into law, Pres. Bill Clinton.
I believe the then president in office when Barry Winchel died is William Jefferson Clinton. If I am correct, the change would be made in this passage: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
Of course this was a hate crime, why pretend anything else. What is worse, gay people are not the only people that are targets of hate in the military. If you're Presbyterian, according to some of the army chaplains you may be a demon too... there is a great article here in Huff Post by Bruce Wilson,
and here is a quote from that article...
Link to great article here in Huff Post
http://www
If you ever served in the military you would know that harassment comes to all who serve. Being Black, Hispanic, Jewish, a white country boy or anybody for that matter can spell trouble. This happens all over the world.
I couldn't care less about the no tell procedure in place but if you don't think full disclosure will single soldiers out you are naive and the harassment will be worse. Women are not truly accepted for various reason mentioned in previous comments. Gay men would be targeted. Remember who you're dealing with in the rank and file of soldiers.
I totally agree! How is an open policy going to eliminate someone's prejudice toward a gay person? They'll get targeted even more! If someone has it out for gays, they'll have it out as soon as they know you are gay. This would just speed up more beatings and deaths.
There needs to be SEVERE punishment for these crimes to be a deterrent, as well as indoctrination when everyone first enters the forces.
I've known a female marine raped and killed on camp. Her body was found rolled up in a carpet, burnt beyond recognition. I've knew a white marine who was kicked in the teeth by a group of black marines. It's endless. Racism and sexism prevail.
Its not about forcing others to eliminate their homophobic prejudice. Its about making sure that if there is harassment, they can report it without fear of retribution or being discharged.
but those people in theory can report harassment and not be kicked out for being a woman or a white male.... that's the point you are missing.
"How is an open policy going to eliminate someone's prejudice toward a gay person?"
It does not matter, actually. Although surveys indicate that familiarity does breed tolerance. All the same, it is impossible to end all bigotry. But we can at least afford the same protections to everyone.
"They'll get targeted even more!" So, the solution to ending racial violence would be to give people of color skin treatments to make them look white? Change the target?
This part -- "There needs to be SEVERE punishment for these crimes to be a deterrent, as well as indoctrination when everyone first enters the forces" -- you do have right. Only it would not be indoctrination. It would be education.
What I would like to see is our military branches focusing on those in service who are openly part of hate groups. As many have said previously, even a repeal of DADT will not stop these types of attacks, just as equal rights for LGBTs will not stop harassment within our communities. The repeal will allow people in service to report harassment, but if those who support hate are still there, being trained in military tactics, being taught to kill, they will represent a great danger, not just to LGBT service members, but to society at large. Our military leaders tend to turn a blind eye to people joining these hate groups, even though many of them have joined the military for the purpose of receiving training, not out of pure patriotic spirit.
Frank notes that "the presence of gays and lesbians is an "unacceptable risk" to the good order and discipline of the military;" this same phrasing is used here : "“Military personnel must reject participation in organizations that espouse supremacist causes...t
http://www
http://www
"Calvin Glover,
18, Army private, was found guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison....
I think the author of this article should have mentioned the punishment that Private Glover received for his crime. I wouldn't describe "life in prison" as toleration of anti-gay harassment.
Don't you understand it isn't about punishing or retribution, but if the gay military officer had been able to report what was going on, this could have been circumvented in the first place?
The soldier was punished for killing someone, not for harassment.
....
And what would a repeal of DADT have done to protect this person? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
All a repeal of DADT will do is bring many of these tensions to the surface. The original intent of DADT wasn't to persecute homosexuals, but to prevent their sexuality being common knowledge and sowing problems within the military structure. Like it or not, the policy has likely protected more gays than not.
The military is a different world, and the disciplined structure must be maintained. Otherwise people die. Repeal DADT, and I guarantee there will be more violence like this. The only way to prevent it would be to have a division that is only for gays. At least until things have settled down more culturally.
Dont be obtuse, your answer is right in this article! In a climate where it is ok to be gay in the military, maybe Provost would have been able to bring his concerns of harassment to his superior! Whereas in the current climate he felt by bringing light to his fears/concerns the issue would result in him being ousted from the military under DADT. DUH!!!
And if ousted, at least he'd still be alive.
"The military is a different world, and the disciplined structure must be maintained
And the hundreds of thousands of gays who have served since the dawn of America have done nothing to hurt discipline. Straight soldiers attest to this all the time. As if we needed anyone's testimony to see this.
I understand the sentament.
In the mean time address members in congress and your senate leaders to move on this issue moreso then what they have been.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
