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
When I was in the Army I remember this Corporal asking what I thought about his idea to claim he was gay to get out of the Army. I said, "It will never work." He said, "No, I heard about this guy that pulled it off, saying to the Col. that he couldn't understand why all the other soldiers didn't like him." I said, "Look, your married with three kids, it ain't going to fly". Just then a Lt. walked by and overhearing the conversation said, "Unless you're caught in the act, forget it." Selling drugs, raping women, and espionage didn't even get a soldier out of the Army, just reduced in rank and busting rocks somewhere. I don't know when all of this became an issue.
It became an issue primarily when the media started to report on the heinous murders of gay soldiers by fellow homophobic soldiers who were able to get away with murder that could have been stopped if the gay soldier had been allowed to approach a superior officer and tell the superior about the harrassment and abuse.
What you describe does seem to be problematic for the gay service member trying to operate within the restrictions of DADT.
But on the other hand, couldn't the person being harassed just report the harassment without acknowledging being gay?
HOW did the other soldiers get to know? That is the question. Why is why DADT was instituted.
You don't ask me, I don't tell you....now it is murder plain and simple without any "motives"
This is a very sad situation. I personally think a good stoning is the best punishment for all hate crimes. I also think DADT should be repealed, but I doubt it will stop people from committing hate crimes. People are going to be hateful and act the way they want in discrimination no matter what the laws say.
yes, the hatred and bigotry that leads to violence will continue. But if a soldier is being harrassed and tormented, the gay soldier is not allowed to approach the proper authorities to intercede and stop the torment of harrassment without risking being discharged and losing highly qualified invaluable soldiers
With all sincerity, I don't understand how lifting DADT will prevent threats and physical violence and death against gays in the military. If someone is that homophobic that they would kill someone, then how does lifting DADT going to stop it? If someone reports someone to a superior about threats, will that really stop someone from causing physical harm? Don't get me wrong, I think DADT is a stupid policy and if you want to serve and be open, then by all means, do it. But a lot of people who enlist are not the smartest, open-minded, or accepting people. It's unfortunate that we as a society can't look past homosexuality, but clearly that is not going to change anytime soon. So, please don't be snarky, but if someone can explain it like I'm a 5 year old, I would appreciate some light on this.
Repealing DADT and allowing gays to serve openly and honestly in the military will not stop the hate crime violence targeted toward gays in the military. It will however allow a gay soldier to report the harrassment and allow the proper authorities to investigate potential threats put upon soldiers before those threats turn into violence or death.
I agree that DADT should be abolished, but if gays in the military think that being able to serve openly will end harrassment, they might talk to a few of their fellow FEMALE soldiers. And just because you can (technically) report harrassment does not mean that it won't still occur, and that the military hierarchy won't punish the victims instead of the perpetrators. If we knew the true extent of sexual harrassment and the percentage of women in the military who have been raped, this country would be astonished (and probably no one would willingly let their daughter or sister sign up to serve).
The exact same arguments were made regarding integrating the military with respect to race.
Was it wrong to do so? If we could integrate the military with respect to race (remember, it was by executive order), why is it so much more difficult with respect to sexual orientation?
It's not about integration, because gays are already there. It's the presumption that lifting DADT will stop the killing of gay or allegedly-gay soldiers. In my experience, if somone is so hateful as to spew homophobic remarks day in and day out, then being able to report them will not help. If anything, it would probably incite the homophobe more. DADT should be repealed because it's an absurd policy; I think it will do nothing to stop violence against gays in the military.
Here's an alternate argument... how could he be harrassed for being gay if he didn't tell anybody?
Go ahead and get rid of don't ask don't tell, it seems stupid any, gays have as much a right to serve their country as anybody else...but if in fact this was a hate crime, if people are able to open about their sexuality, could that not invite more harrassment? just curious.
I think its weird Obama broke his promise to get rid of don't ask don't tell.
The same argument was made with regard to race: If we integrate the military, the blacks are going to be harassed.
Are you saying it was wrong for Truman to issue the executive order forcing the military to integrate? If we could do it then, why can't we do it now? Are you saying our military doesn't know how to behave professionally? Every other industrialized nation has managed to do it. Our our Servicemembers so weak that they can't do what everybody else can?
You've never served in the U.S. military, have you?
In my brief military experience I witnessed, and very nearly participated in, aggressive violence between fellow soldiers, without any issue of sexual orientation bigotry entering the situation at all. Just the simple stresses that are a normal part of the military experience were enough to put privates at each other's throats.
Will we wait? Yes we will. And then, following Obama's passive lead, we still will do nothing.
If you don't want to wait on President Obama, then contact your own State Legislators. Why not put the pressure on them to do the job they were elected to do ?
1 results for: genocide
genocide | noun
Main Entry: genocide !je-nu-+sId
Pronunciation: ˈje-nə-ˌsīd
Function: noun
Date: 1944
Results
1944 the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
Related Forms
1. geno·cid·al+je-nu-!sI-d/ul ˌje-nə-ˈsī-dəl adjective
How many gay soldiers have to die at the hands of bigoted homophobic fellow Americans before this is called a genocide?
Your comments have been right on.....until now. Now you got my negative attention. This kind of over-the-top sensationalist hyperbole results only in ruining the credibility of any other argument you present. The murders of a mere few gay military personnel over a period of years, while certainly appalling, do not remotely, REMOTELY equate with a definition of genocide. To use the term so carelessly therefore does a disservice to the cause you otherwise argue for so eloquently.
And for the record, I'm a gay vet who will take second place to no one in my desire to see gays able to serve openly. I also have two military officer sons who agree that the policy is ridiculous but understand the need to work carefully toward such equality.
here, here!
One lesson I learned about the gay rights movment is they are going to have to wait. This is not their time and the President is not their leader. Right now the so called Democrats want to focus on the ecomony there is no time to deal with anything else. Be quite and wait your turn
No, we have waited long enough, it is our time and yes, the President IS our leader, also. Afterall, the Gay community helped elect Obama, something he might want to remember prior to 2012. Nor will we be quiet. Besides, who appointed you LordGodKing to decide which group has to wait their turn?
you may have waited long enough...but you will have to wait even longer.The black vote went overwhelmingly for Obama. How long do you think they will have to wait for school vouchers??
as the Democrats know very well...what are you going to do about it?? vote Republican??
This was kind of a sarcastic comment. I was simply throwing back every response I every got from so called Democrats when i try to argue in favor of gay rights. What I leaned is that President Obama is not eh leader of the Gay rights movement. Someone needs to step up to fill that position. I am not lordgodking nor do I want to be I am cynical and sick of the Dem's B.S. responses to this issue. Shut up and wait is what I am told not how I feel.
There were several gay servicemen stomped to death as a result of the right's hate campaign against Clinton's efforts to open up the military. This was the signal issue that ginned up the whole hate radio movement into an electoral juggernaut that took over and wrecked the country. What happened is that average voters were replaced by willfully ignorant bigots who have now held the U.S. back behind almost all other modern nations in progress. We are not even competitive in the world any more when all of our competitors have their health care covered but we have to price $2500 for coverage into the price of a car.
The far right and hate radio are directly responsible for the brutal lynching of these patriotic men who only wanted to serve their country. The symbol for their whole rise to power and ruin should be the Time mag cover of Matthew Shepard lynched on a fencepost. This is what the right wing of this country can do.
Clinton instituted Don't Ask when the Supreme Court was about to throw out the Pentagon's discriminatory policy. Demorats play god, guns and gays better than republicans.
Clinton's DADT was really a reflection of the Republican Congress at the time... and DOMA was authored by none other than the "Libertarian" candidate, Bob Barr.
Very sad indeed!
If we kept women out of the military we would have less sexual harrassment and rape within the military. We wouldn't have to waste time, manpower and taxpayer money investigating the false claims of whiney women who shouldn't be there in the first place. The military is a man's world. We can't change that and should stop trying. Same with ni... uh, African American's. This is a white country and we shouldn't let some smarty pants sociologist eggheads say otherwise and dictate social change. I am so proud of the Air Force Academy for recognizing the ministry of our soldiers especially overseas. The best thing we can do for foriegners in other countries is to show them the one true way, the American way. If American is good enough for the Bible, it's good enough for them, too. Imagine the actual words of God used by people all over the world. That is why we can't have gays in the military.
(Maybe not apparant to Palin followers but this is sarcasm.)
I didn't realize you were being sarcastic at first, but not because I'm a Palin supporter. It's because you (unwittingly) posted the most coherent explanation of this bigoted/homophobic point of view. It's what the tr@lls would have come up with if they could string together a coherent sentence.
(I guess the giveaway should have been that if you were an actual tr@ll, it would have quickly devolved into name calling and insults.)
Lol, I'm no Palin supporter but it took me until about halfway through to catch on. Sadly, that's a pretty realistic post from a wingnut.
Apparent from the start that this was a dem plant to portray the right as he/she/it actually thinks of anyone opposing them. And then we notice the dummy can't even tell the difference between the AFA and soldiers revealing he/she/it is just dumb and the writing endorses it.
Allowing gays to serve in the oogah-so-butch alleged culture of the military is just a STUPID IDEA. It's THAT SIMPLE. What the f are people thinking?
They are thinking that gays can be as tough as anyone and should have the right to serve their country if they choose to.
What are you thinking??? Should we ban gays from any job that is considered "manly"? And if so, what jobs would qualify? Truck driver? Fisherman? Bouncer?
"Allowing gays to serve in the oogah-so-butch alleged culture of the military is just a STUPID IDEA."
Newsflash: Not all gay men are effeminate. Not all lesbians are butch. In fact, I'm willing to wager that there are plenty of gay men who could probably whoop your arse.
And some of them are drag queens.
You obviously have never had the misfortune to cross a drag queen.
Read "The Iliad." Achilles was compelled to fight upon the death of his intimate tent mate, Patroclus.
Other notable warriors of a homo or bisexual bent include:
Alexander the Great, Gaius Julius Caesar, Richard the Lion Hearted, Charles XII of Sweden.
Also read William Manchester's memoir "Good-by Darkness." Manchester tells of a sergeant-major's proclivities. There was no expressed ban on homosexuality in the U.S. military until 1942. It was the result of the War Department misguided attempt to protect innocent draftees from this particular reality of the martial life.
I'm thinking you should google a close knit indestructible military unit called The Theban Band and then you might have some idea wtf SOME people are thinking.
Enlisting in the military for some is often their only viable way out of the repressive enviornments in which they were born into, or find themselves a part of due to circumstances. Unfortunately, this often ends up being a case of 'out of the frying pan, into the fire' for gays and lesbians who join up. Its high time we demand a repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'...it smacks of the old Jim Crow laws that used to be in place here in the South for so many years....'separate but equal', etc. There never was any truth to that one, either. DADT is simply a 'Catch 22' for our gay and lesbian troops, sailors, airmen/women, and marines... they can't reveal their orientation without jeopardizing their jobs, thus they are 'acceptable' targets for harrassment, violence, and even murder by others. Another point that is worth mentioning: many of our gay/lesbian service people are often among the brightest and most educated of enlistees. How many linguists have we already lost who are fluent in Arabic, Farsi, and other languages spoken in places where our troops are currently stationed, or may likely to be stationed in the near future? This fact alone screams for repeal of this unjust, biased, and cruel piece of legislation.
Don't ask/don't tell is outmoded and I sense many if not most in military leadership want to get this resolved so the many capable Gay Americans can serve. But there are a lot of larger questions that politicians love to dodge that need to be resolved. Among them:
1. Gay marriage or some form of legal life partner status - how does the military treat partners of those in the service who are Gay? Similar to or different from husbands and wives of service members? The military is not a job, it is a calling and it imposes immense burdens on the partners of those who have taken that calling (indeed it is a calling for the partner too).
2. Barracks housing policy - many barracks are now actually dorms with 2 person rooms; what is the policy if Gays or Lesbians self-select to live together in a room? Would heterosexual men and women be permitted to room together? Would heterosexual roommates be any more likely to have sex together than Gay roommates, and if not why would we care more about one than the other?
Etc. etc. If Congress cannot address these questions on a larger societal scale it is not reasonable to ask the military to do so.
1) If DADTDP (everybody forgets that last part) were removed and gay people were allowed to serve openly, then there should be no difference between a mixed-sex couple and a same-sex couple. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
2) There is to be no fraternization among the ranks. There is a simple way to fix housing issues: Reassign rooming. The reason why we separate men and women is because the majority of people are heterosexual and thus any two random, mixed-sex couple has the potential of having a sexual relationship. If there is the rare occasion of two gay people being assigned to a two-person room, then assignments can be changed to solve the problem.
You seem to be making mountains out of molehills.
So you're saying Gay people would not be allowed to room together as a matter of policy? Just checking.
To a great extent, within the bounds of units (a platoon in the Army or Marines) roommates self select.
If you think men and women in the military are not "fraternizing" (having sex among themselves) you are truly deluding yourself. This, and pregnancy among deployed women, is a big problem for Navy vessels at sea to the extent that it negatively impacts operational effectiveness.
Husbands and wives get all sorts of benefits (move assistance, health care, survivor benefits, etc.). Gay partners do not. Should they?
If these are just molehills why not simply resolve these little things and get on wtih the rest of the process? They are not molehills and that's why we don't.
If the military isn't a job, why do they get paid?
You never served, did you?
The prior cases you mention are regrettable. However you are jumping the gun here. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals are murdered on a daily basis. This is not good period. People should not be murdering other people. People should not be harasssing other people. But your piece does not reflect responsible journalism in that it attempts to link up a murder with the persons alleged sexual orientation. This is inflammatory and without facts. You need facts. If you can't get the facts, making them up will not help you. Your suggestions have some merit but not much. Lynch mob psychology from either side will not cut it.
Barry Winchell's murder WAS linked to his sexual orientation!!! He was killed because he was gay! What part of that story don't you understand?
The link you're searching for is right under your nose. People are being harassed because of their sexual orientation; because of DADT, victims of this abuse are loathe to report this harassment; left un-checked, this harassment has led to murder. What are you failing to comprehend here?
ITA. Where is the evidence that the murder of this soldier was related to his sexual orientation? This post is intellectually dishonest and inflammatory. It does nothing to promote your agenda.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
