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

[bighat]

If it is common knowlege that gay people in the military are harassed than why do gays join the miltary? Makes one think these gay people joining the military are not the brightest bulbs on the tree.

Do not get me wrong. I think gay people should be allowed to join the military. Does no one remember Vietnam. No one would have had to flee the country just say they were gay.

Believe the draft should be reinstated for men and women. but certain restrictions on the job. Must have the physical ability to perorm the job. In other words all physical tests should be based on the job requirements not sex or age

[theBUSHdemocrat]

The same reason there are gay Republicans . . . . their "gayness" isn't 100% of who they are and doesn't dictate everything they do or want in life, just whom they love.

Why do gay men marry women and reproduce only to come out of the closet (or not) later in life? Because gay people are repressed everywhere - and laws like this only encourage that repression!

[YellowDogInRedCounty]

"Why do gay men marry women and reproduce only to come out of the closet (or not) later in life?"

Because there is such a climate of homophobia throughout society that many gay individuals, desperate for a "cure", think they can be "cured" if they just marry someone of the opposite gender. The misery and broken families that are a result of this thinking are enough to break your heart.

[DanniLomo]

Gays, lesbians and most military personnel join because they are patriots who want to serve their country. It is also common knowledge that in some units women, blacks and other minorities are harrassed. That didn't keep me, a black woman, from joining and and being incredibly proud of my service. It is also, fairly common knowledge that the southern part of the US is has a few racists, do you think that's going to keep me out of the kudzu? No. The prejudice of others does not dictate my path, nor should it dictate the path of men and women in this country who want to voluntarily protect us with their very lives.

[dsbsh]

This should go without say... but you said it beautifully.

[LisaLisa1234]

Well said.

[stewiegriffinsrealmom]

AMEN!!

[Geowar]

Maybe Gays and Lesbians are as patriotic as anyone else and want to serve their country, which should be their right to do so.

[sisterdebmac]

Yeah, gee, if I'd known I was going to be picked on in high school for not being as rich and great looking as the kids with all the juice, I just would've stayed home.

Great logic there.

[TrekBear]

Exactly! My partner is a Vietnam Vet and he has some wild stories to tell about his adventures as well and the numerous other gay men he met in the Army.

[CAMBEL]

Of course they will wait until more gay soldiers are killed. Many of the top brass don't think that gays are full people who deserve civil rights, so why would they care if a few more get killed?

[BlueZoo]

Over 700 of that same "top brass" just signed a letter to President Obama saying they do not want any repeal of DADT! It makes me sick and I would bet these are career military officers who are both old and WHITE! I normally despise using race in a HuffPo comment but it begs to be mentioned here, as this is typical of the Republican party and that party is the party of the officers in the military! They don't have a clue that we're in the 21st century! It will take these old military dying off before we'll see a military where DADT doesn't exist. I won't live to see it but I pray all of you will!

[TryToBeFlexible]

Hmmm, I bet alot of them are also not white. Alot of black Americans are very predudiced against gays also, although you would think any reasonably intelligent person who had experienced prejudice, would recognize and purge it from their own heart.

[Geowar]

Homophobia is just as rampant in the Black and Latin communities, if not more so, as homosexuality is often seen as a "white" affliction by these communities. Colin Powell supported DADT back in the 90's, arguing that sexual orientation was a choice but people were born Black so discrimination against Gays was understandable. Powell still refuses to endorse ending DADT. Of course, if ethnic minorities were being drummed out of the military because they were seen as a threat to unit cohesion, Powell would be screaming bloody murder.

[aftershock]

"Over 700 of that same "top brass" just signed a letter to President Obama saying they do not want any repeal of DADT!"

It really doesn't matter what they want, President Obama is the Commander in Chief, he's their boss. Either do what the boss says, or resign, or be discharged. Their choice really, but of course, Obama's not going to step up to the plate on this issue, nor is Congress. The only thing that will change about DADT in the next 4 years will be the military MIGHT stop using third party outings to discharge gay soldiers (unless of course they refuse to deny their sexuality when confronted).

[offred]

I'd really encourage gay people to not join the military. It's not worth the danger of violence, verbal, sexual, and emotional abuse. If every gay person up and quit the military (I know they'd probably sacrifice honorable discharges and pensions), I think the gaps they'd leave would force the military to readjust its thinking. Gays are 10 percent of the population. Can the understaffed military afford to lose that many candidates?

During the civil rights era, when blacks boycotted bus services rather than sit in the back of the bus, the bus services eventually knuckled under because they couldn't afford to lose the business.

[airmikee99]

I really encourage no one to join the military. Let those fatass windbags on capital hill go do their own fighting.

Do you think we'd be involved in two pointless wars if Junior had to go and fight in the war himself? Hell no.

We could single handedly end every war by making the people responsible for starting them do their own fighting.

[bighat]

What a statement airmikeep

Are you available to travel to other countries to get them to implement this policy. If you are really good include grandkids

[sixyfivepercentwater]

"We could single handedly end every war by making the people responsible for starting them do their own fighting." Or by just not enlisting. Gay or straight, anyone who joins the military is contributing to the problem. Bush et al could not have had their war in Iraq if enough people had refused to participate. A person is doing nothing for his country or his own personal evolution by volunteering to kill on command.

Gays have always been in the military. And before there was an official "don't ask, don't tell" policy (has anyone ever really explained how that works?) people simply didn't ask and didn't tell. There is no reason why a person's sexuality is relevant to job performance, so there is no reason for anyone to know these people are gay to begin with.

[KDog76A]

We could single handedly end every war by making the people responsible for starting them do their own fighting.

laughable. Who's going to do the forcing? you say "we" the same way politicians say "we" when talking about going to war. Making people do something is what politicians do, funny you think you can make them do anything.