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

[elusiveyo]

by not acting on dadt, the dems, obama and the military as well as the republicans will have blood on their hands if this soldiers death is found to be related to homophobia, by giving lip service but no action to this issue they feed the perception that it is ok to be homophobic, the problem is not homosexuals, the problem is homophobia, how pitiful that there are no substantial leaders willing to stand up for equality

[Sean 6399]

I don't think the military feeds the perception that it's ok to murder fellow soldiers, regardless of the status of DADT.

Maybe if the courts-martial showed a pattern of acquitting every homophobic murderer then I might agree with you. But I'm pretty sure the military courts apply fairly severe punishment to murderers, regardless of the killer's reasons.

[FACINGREALIT]

If DADT is repealed and gays are allowed to be open with their sexuality you can BELIEVE the murder rate of gay soldiers will escalate. It is ONE thing to think someone is GAY and quite another to know. The MILITARY will have to make special provisions to protect these soldiers to include separate housing - for there are not going to be many males that will tolerate having to share sleeping/bathing quarters with men who are openly gay.

This sentiment is not any slight against those who are gay that serve it is just FACT. It may also leave the US military personnel open to further scutiny by countries who do not condone the homosexual lifestyle, if for nothing more than their moral reasonings. This is a disaster waiting to happen, which is why NO PREVIOUS PRESIDENT has addressed this issue for I'm sure the military leaders have seen more homosexual attacks/suicides than have been made public.

[nicole44]

As big a tragedy as all this is, I don't see how DADT has anything to do with it. The people that are capable of doing this would have done it regardless if they had a heads up on the person's sexuality or just found out. People who can ki// another human rely don't care about any laws obviously so why would they care about this one? In this case the problem is not DADT it is the sick people of this world who have disregarded human life.

[Domalom]

Its all about the culture that is fostered in the military... DADT makes it explicit that its not okay to be gay in the military. The policy creates a hostility towards gay and lesbian servicemembers that may be lessened if DADT were repealed.

[MC1701B]

And it was explicit before DADT. Stop blaming Clinton; he (quite famously) never served.

[Domalom]

Another fantastic article! Obama needs to overturn this policy with a stop-loss executive order.

[luvangelHussein330]

Would you rather a cure or a band-aide? President Obama can sign a stop loss executive order but it's only valid for his term/s. The next President could come in and sign thier own executive order to bring DADT back. And we will be right back where we started. Since DADT is an actual law he needs to go thru congress and the senate. So if this is something that you want brow beat your congress and those in the senate to replea this law.

[Dynamohum]

Stop loss until Congress gets off it's a** and repeals DADT. At least it is something. A move in the right direction, even though not complete is still a move in the right direction!!!.

[Derelict outlaw]

Right on, it's time he did the right thing.

[JRsNana]

After years of bitching about Bush and his "executive orders" and signing statements, the LAST thing Obama would want to do is follow suit. He has been very clear about the need to follow the LAW. Congress makes the law, he'll sign it. Things are definitely moving in the right direction for that to happen in the near future.

[justoverit333]

This is just awful. They can fight in wars but have to
keep their identities a secret. I recently saw a young
politician, Murphy I think, on MSM who is working on a
bill regarding this and Obama said he would sign it.
Hopefully we're moving in the right direction.

[tnkeating]

Well, first of all his identity was no secret, his sexuality was, he could have just resigned from the military if he felt threatened, maybe he was murdered for someother reason

[Derelict outlaw]

Yeah in my experience somebody thought he was going to "out" them!

[Michael Rowe - Huffpost Blogger]

The suggestion from the Navy that there is nothing here to indicate a hate crime has an unpleasant echo of the Army saying the same thing about the night Barry Winchell had his face and head smashed to bits with a baseball bat while he slept. It's very difficult to take the Pentagon at their word when they claim to be taking the investigation of these attacks seriously when they can't even admit the basis for them in the first place. Excellent piece of writing.

[madatnewsmedia]

It is sad that this kind of tragedy is happening to our gay military personnel, but I don't see how DADT contributes to this tragedy! If DADT caused him to be killed, what happens to these same people if it known that they are gay and lesbian? I don't understand the reasoning that everyone is giving for repealing DADT. Gays and lesbians who joined the military while this law is in effect, knew what they were doing; they kniew this law had been passed, so if they still joined the military, that's on them. It's funny, how you all are beating the President up about this nonsense, but there are other more terrible crimes going on in the military. Women are raped everyday, but no one seems to care about that issue. Racism is still rampant, but no one seems to care about that. All the talk is about how gays and lesbians fight for their country, but still don't have rights! They have all the rights that they deserve. Marriage isn't a right as I see it! And marriage between folks of the same sex is just wrong.

[ThomasBJones2]

Your posting is dropping a few considerations:
1. Many women (including straight women) are often lesbian baited in the military in which male soldiers say they will tell superiors that a women is gay if she won't have sex with them, this works because the investigations relating to DADT did into people personal lives because it is nearly impossible to prove that some is or isn't gay, so these women have to go through an intensive and painful investigation or just go along with the male soldier having his way.
2. not all gay people are completely aware that they will be unable to change (many young gay men figure they will somehow be able to fit in and act straight) nor are they aware of just how constricting they will find the policy in the future, many closeted men figure they can remain closeted forever, until they realize they just can't bear it any longer.
3. This law affects straight men in a similar way to how it affects straight women. If some guy decides that your 'faggoty' and makes fun of you, how can you complain to your superiors when such a complaint is likely to lead to an intrusive and difficult investigation to begin with and even possibly separation from the army (straight people have been separated from the military under DADT)

[justanotherbushhater]

Gosh, It's precisely this attitude that permits violence against gays to continue: that they don't "deserve" anything better.

That they are unworthy of equal protection under the law.

Maybe gay marriage is "wrong" in God's eyes, which I'm guessing is behind such opinions, but no one has God's eyes except God himself. It's blasphemy to presume to know what God thinks.

If you don't want gays to get married in Church, that's fine. But according to our own American secular history [separation of Church and state, remember?], every is entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

If what gays do is "immoral" in the purview of religion, so be it. But these people have a right to love whom they choose and to organize their lives, their families, and their property as they see fit, not somebody else's church.

Racism is no different: treating people as lesser because they are considered "unclean." [See historical racial stereotyping of Jews, blacks, gypsies, etc.]

I love Mr. Obama, too, and I think he's pretty great, but he did make campaign promises he really needs to keep.

And please leave questions of individual morality to heaven and to the individual. Otherwise, it's like playing God.

[redsongia]

The great thing about the gay rights issue is that it chases all the theocrats "out of the closet" so to speak. There is not a single valid policy issue to treat gay people or gay relationships differently under the law. A couple is a stronger financial unit than two singles. Gays who want to be married, not in the theoretical sense, but in the actual sense (have a partner and the flowers all picked out) are probably somewhat older and more likely to be conservative in every other sense of the term EXCEPT the religious one. It's generally better for children to be adopted by any couple, gay or straight, as long as they can care for a child than it is for that orphan to be warehoused in an institution or to continue to tax the government because of endless payments to foster parents. It's better to have a gay soldier who speaks Arabic in the armed forces than to have some untrained kid with violent tendencies who is joining the army rather than go to prison for some crime. These types of soldiers give us Abu Graib scenerios, not reliable intelligence.

At every turn, granting gays full rights is the more conservative principle, if you remove religion from the equation, so let these people argue that the bible should be the law, and go set out and find a country who's Constitution doesn't separate religion from the government. -- Saudi Arabia, maybe.

[Grada3784]

USS Iowa incident repeat, I think.

[Sean 6399]

Maybe these crimes were motivated by some kind of hatred of a collectivist grouping, that's certainly possible. But isn't it also possible that these crimes were motivated by a personal hatred arising from some kind of negative interaction between murderer and victim? And ultimately, what difference does it make? Why is the crime resulting from a hatred of a collective group more heinous than the same crime resulting from hatred of an individual for personal reasons? They seem to be the same crime to me. I don't understand at all the drive to elevate certain crimes into a higher category that calls for more societal outrage.

I see it as sort of like calling the 9/11 attack an act of war, as opposed to a mass-murder. This labeling is really about enabling what would otherwise be considered an extreme reaction to the event. By calling something a hate-crime, there's kind of an indictment of more people than the perpetrator in the crime. It's no longer just a crime, it's a skirmish in a race war, or a battle between straights and gays, etc. I think such a definition might be appropriate for some crimes (the holocaust comes to mind), but I'm afraid the hate-crime term is vastly overused most of the time.

[Dynamohum]

I say call them what they are!! The sooner that puritanical Americans end their collective denial the better. Will it cause some ugly side effects? Yes, but it already is!! It is called moving forward, not continuuing to live in DENIAL

[pissedmichael]

We have to understand that the bulk of recruits are still, essentially, teenagers. They need responsible adult supervision at all times. Apparently, this is a basic premise our military leadership has never really learned. This kind of irresponsibility on the part of that leadership reflects a certain tendency to encourage this regression in the young people who serve. Why? I'm not really sure. Just suspicions. Perhaps if they keep them in an adolescent state of mind, they will be more receptive to authority? I just don't know. However, I do have to wonder why this kind of incident keeps cropping up. I have to wonder why it encourages a culture that losing a fight with a gay man is a cause for shame and ridicule--he was a man, first and foremost--with all the strength and reflexes of a man. Where's the shame, and why are his fellow soldiers ridiculing and therefore encouraging his reaction? They are, after all, supposed to 'have his back,' and he theirs. I remember these guys in high school. They were the bullies. They were the members of viciously intolerant crowds and not in the least empathetic to any one different than themselves. For the most part they remain this way for the rest of their lives. Apparently, a disproportionate number join the military, and are permitted, even encouraged, to engage in regressive behavior. They do a disservice to those who join and perform their duties because they are patriots, not intolerant bigots.

[Dynamohum]

Great comment. Thanks.

[Gwen R]

If you know people in the Navy, then you know that they don't usually shoot gays. There's no need to shoot anyone when you can can just throw them overboard. There's no way to know how many accidental deaths and suicides were the result of homophobia. Go ahead, ask a Navy sailor what a "blanket party" is. And warn your gay friends not to join the Navy.

[chaya]

The Democratic election wins--and Obama's win--may have spelled the end of hope for gays on civil rights. The world held its breath when Obama won with promises of gay civil rights. Now that he is coming down on the side of the GOP and Fundamentalist Christians and Democrats are twiddling their fingers hoping the gays will go away, bigots everywhere see their hatred confirmed. Anyone see the news about the five gays in El Paso, Texas?

Thanks a whole lot, Obama.

[FACINGREALIT]

For your info - Obama is not responsible for repealing DADT, that takes an act of Congress.

[kwijibo]

What Obama's doing is maintaining the legacy and status-quo of his own Democratic party, the party of DADT.

You can't blame this on the GOP or Fundamentalist Christians. Bill Clinton's signature is the one on the law and we all know he's neither a Republican nor a fundamentalist Christian.

[Sean 6399]

Nobody has a right to serve in the military. It's not a summer camp for self-esteem development. It's an organization for breaking things and killing people.

[Ponderus]

Actually, every able bodies young man and woman should have an OBLIGATION to serve in the military...

or in some other form of public service...

for at least 1 - 2 years after graduating high school.

[Sean 6399]

Involuntary servitude went out of style in 1862.

[madatnewsmedia]

As an African American woman, I wouldn't allow myself, son or daughter to join the Military! Blacks have fought for their country and when they come back, they can't get a job or any services. When my son can't drive his car, without being pulled over, not because he's doing something wrong, but because he drives a BMW, Benz or some other luxury car, I could care less about him fighting for this country. We have a black man as the President and I'v e seen more hate coming from white folks than he deserves. Even getting elected hasn't stopped the hatred and racsim. This country can't ever talked about injustices in other countries, such as Iran, especially, since they don't treat their own citizens right. I am not talking about gays and lesbians.

[Mishima1]

Sean,

Yes, numerous groups see the military as a way to achieve their social engineering policies.

Decades ago, the radical feminists used the military in this way, and it had devastating effects: Training standards were changed. In the navy, for example, maneuvers have been disrupted because of pregnancies. Combat soldiers actually have to be trained to inhibit their natural instinct to protect the female: The training consists of a fake rape of a female soldier to get information, and the male soldier must resist the inclination to help or save her. Simple things like chin-ups in the Air Force Academy are not required for females; they just have to hang on the bar for a specified time.

The homosexual advocates are not thinking of the country; they simply want to press their radical agenda. They do not care if it weakens our military and discourages real Americans from joining. Their attitude comes to the front quite clearly in this matter.

[SUIGENEROUSLA]

The gay people are already there! What's the problem with letting them serve openly?

Gay people aren't real Americans? Does that mean I don't have to pay my taxes?

[SUIGENEROUSLA]

Women and minorities weakened the military? So, it's weaker now because of the women? So you're saying we have a weak military?! I disagree, it's strong and there are many gay people in it now, making it strong.

[Michael Rowe - Huffpost Blogger]

The only group that is currently seeing the military as "a way to achieve their social engineering policies" is bigots, as demonstrated by Sean6399 and Mishima1's comments.

It's a little jejune to say that 'nobody has the right to serve in the military' when recruiters are apparently stretched so thin that they're recruiting drunks and criminals to serve in the Armed Forces, and when the Marines recently were in the news for actively recruiting a completely unsuitable candidate suffering from autism, and then insisting he stay in the Marines even when he was shown to be incapable of fulfilling his duties. On the other hand, presumably he was autistic and heterosexual, and therefore of some tangential value.

I suggest that the ignorant Google Rep. Patrick Murphy, ex-West Point professor and decorated paratrooper, who is quarterbacking the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and see what a heterosexual Irish American former altar boy has to say about the policy---assuming of course they're interested in what insights an actual soldier has about it.

[Kodachi]

Then gay people who are good at breaking things and killing people should be encouraged to use their talents for the nation's benefit.

[Cockacola]

How right you are - why don't they just get out? When black people move into a neighborhood, the whites go - they don't sit there whining about how the house values have gone down.....even if they did, they know their options! Enough whining from gays already!

Why join an organization knowing full well the policy AND THEN BREAK the policy!?

[Geowar]

With that simplistic logic, blacks never would have been admitted into the military, private clubs, institutions of higher education, etc. WTF?

[JeffmChicago]

DADT is the equivalent to See No Evil, Speak No Evil, See No Evil. 3 Monkeys holding their hands to the eyes, mouth and ears. It's insane.

The military knows there are gays amongst their ranks they just soon to ignore that fact.

Strange behavior for the United States of America.

[valkyrie607]

Homophobia in the military is a lousy reason to avoid giving equal treatment to gays. It's It's like saying that because we have so many anti-semites in the military, we shouldn't allow Jews to serve openly. They should conceal their religion, in order to make the bigots more comfortable. That's essentially what the military is saying about gays right now.

[middleofeverywhere]

I am constantly saddened by the state of the world and the people in it. I grew up in a fairly rough neighborhood, and the Army was frequently used as an escape--either go into the Army or go to jail. The fact that there are some people more worried about serving alongside a gay man than a guy who's there when he should be in prison is unbelievable. Throughout history this sort of thing pops up again and again. Jews denying their heritage to keep from being gassed, light-skinned black girls trying to "pass" as white to escape bullying, etc. When the bosses say that homosexuality is something to be kept secret, it turns it into something to be ashamed of. Soldiers are drilled and drilled until they practically see their commanders as God, so the decree from on high translates into the embrace of discrimination by the lower ranks. No one should have to hide something as non-threatening as their true-self, if that self is no danger to others. As for the guy that said gays should "be quiet and wait their turn" for rights--really? There is no excuse for anyone to have to wait for rights in this day and age, and in this country that is supposedly so free.

[hoodrat]

The homophobia to me has always been a matter of deep, internal struggles with ones own gender orientation. Samurai, Romans, Spartans, Medieval Knights all had a history of same gender dalliences - yet none were hindered in the performance of their duty. As a Marine, when you heard stories of another man, you knew he was marked for harassment - of all kinds. If he was still there after a few months, doing the same job as I, in the unit we were a part of - he truly was a Marine. The one I'm thinking about now, I had the pleasure of assisting when I walked in on one of the more strenous "attitude adjustment" sessions. Just like racists, a certain percentage will always object to the uncomfortable, because of culture they were raised in. It's been my experience that if a person is one he definitely is the other also.

[PinkoPanther]

Wow. Poor guy... I hope we find out exactly how and why he died.

If Obama does not keep his promise to get rid of DADT - he is alienating a LOT of people who strongly supported him - including myself. And I never make the same mistake twice.

[Mishima1]

Obama, if he does not get rid of DADT, may lose some supporters, but he will gain many more. I have been on the fence with Obama, but if he keeps DADT or defers to the judgment of the military, I will see him in a much more favorable light, as will many Americans.

[Geowar]

Keep dreaming. Over 70% of the country support the repeal of DADT. Furthermore, let's see Obama get elected again without Gay votes and Gay money.

[MC1701B]

So you'll do what? Vote for Sarah Palin instead? Or just sit home and let her win by default?

Good luck with that.

[PinkoPanther]

MC1701B - No, I will vote 3rd party... and I will focus my funds and energy there too. Winning YOUR battles is not important to me. We live in a 3 dimensional world, you know...

[Rachel Kiernan]

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

I would have to say that is about the most intelligent thing I have heard in a long time regarding harrassment against gays in the military. DADT was never intended to protect the careers of gays. Rather, it's been used to make certain gays cannot step forward and admit harrassment and abuse.

Thank you for such an excellent article.