What Can Stop the Gay-Bashing in the Military?

The Associated Press reported today that another gay service member was abused by the military across several years of service to his country. Petty Officer Third Class Joseph Rocha, a sailor trained to work with military dogs in the Navy's anti-terrorism, force protection, and explosive detection operations, was brutalized for more than two years at his base in Bahrain after his refusal to hire a prostitute raised suspicions that he was gay. The abuse included hog-tying Rocha to a chair and pushing him, bound, into a dog kennel full of feces, as well as humiliating him by repeatedly forcing him to simulate oral sex with another man while being videotaped.

Rocha told me that, while hazing was common in his unit, the activities he was forced to do were a direct result of the perception that he was gay, including being told by his military leadership, on videotape, to act more effeminate, speak with a higher voice, appear more "*****," and make his sounds and gestures more realistic (one begins to wonder at how "straights" in the Navy get their thrills). He said it was the "most disgusting, degrading thing that I've ever been made to do."

The military is a big place, and there are always bad apples in any large institution. Could that be the source of the abuse suffered by Rocha? In the aftermath of other abuse scandals such as Tailhook, the military eventually called for heads to roll, if only to perform accountability to the rest of society. It was a gesture meant to convey that the military understood and agreed that the behavior was unacceptable.

But Rocha's case is not about bad apples. The military doesn't even think that what happened was wrong. In fact, the military leader who oversaw and perpetrated these acts against Rocha, Chief Petty Officer Michael Toussaint, was promoted to Senior Chief following the incident, even though the military was fully aware of all that happened. Toussaint was implicated in other incidents as well, including handcuffing a female sailor to a bed and forcing her to simulate lesbian sex with another woman, also while on video. One of the women later committed suicide.

Now that the incident is getting some press, however, and following the letter by Rep. Sestak, the Navy is doing a different dance, telling the AP that these incidents "do not reflect who we are as a Navy." Cmdr. Cappy Surette assures us that, "The Navy is now looking into the handling of this situation more carefully." Now, that is, that it's been caught.

Some say that episodes of anti-gay harassment like this one are exactly the reason not to lift the ban. They say this shows the military is not ready to handle gays in their midst. But this is nonsense. Everyone knows gays are already there, and can't ever be fully kept out. They have been not just serving for centuries but are increasingly serving with the full knowledge of their peers. Two thirds of deployed service members say they know or suspect gays in their unit, and three quarters say they're "personally comfortable" around gays, notwithstanding the illusion of fierce military resistance that conservatives try to whip up around this issue.

More to the point, driving harassment underground by forcing gays into the closet is the worst possible option. Lifting the ban would allow those who are threatened by anti-gay harassment to confront their perpetrator or inform authorities without fear of retribution. Research shows clearly that writing discrimination into law or policy encourages the kind of misbehavior that Roche and others have now, predictably, endured.

"Don't ask, don't tell" singles out gay people as an "unacceptable risk" to the military. It is especially insidious because it makes gay people eligible to serve while simultaneously calling them a threat. It says to heterosexuals, "Gays are serving with you but they are a danger to your mission." It's no wonder many are used as a punching bag.

What is the answer? Rep. Patrick Murphy, an Iraq War veteran and former professor at West Point, is spearheading the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" in Congress. This is a brave mission for a young, Catholic, heterosexual representing a moderate district in Pennsylvania. But the effort will not succeed overnight. President Obama, however, has the power, through a 1983 "stop-loss" statute passed by Congress, to halt all discharges immediately by executive order, giving Congress time to debate the issue. As his political capital flies out the door in an all-out effort to reform health care, the likelihood that Congress will end "don't ask, don't tell" before the 2010 mid-term elections is quickly plummeting.

This is not an academic debate, and the lives of people like Joseph Rocha should not be held hostage to politics. The cleanest, quickest way to lift the ban and protect all our service members and their national security mission, is for the commander-in-chief to lead the way.

>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathaniel-frank/what-can-stop-the-gay-bas_b_295170.html

Joseph Rocha Was Tormented By His Navy Commander. Guess Who Was Rewarded?

>>>http://www.*****ty.com/joseph-rocha-was-tormented-by-his-navy-commander-guess-who-was-rewarded-20090904/

Gay former sailor says hazing led to PTSD

>>>http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=64564

Rep. Wants Answers on Abused Gay Sailor

>>>http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/09/22/Rep__Wants_Answers_on_Abused,_Gay_Sailor/

This, or actually ANY, sort of abuse such as this should be punished.

I DO understand why the Sailor would be reluctant to broach the subject with the IG or JAG IF he was gay. I say IF because I had no inclination to read the entire article/post. I do not care if he was gay or not...that type of abuse is not only uncalled for, it is deplorable. U.S. military members are supposed to be held to a higher standard than this. HOWEVER....when people want to include everybody in the military regardless of their moral standing, you will get both ends of the spectrum.

My first inclination, upon reading the title of this post, was to merely post, "What Can Stop the Gay-Bashing in the Military?"... how about keeping them OUT of the military. That being said, I would not condone physical, mental, or emotional abusing of a person for being gay.


I DON'T believe they should be allowed to join the military, regardless of how "Patriotic" they profess to be. I have been in several 'discussions' about the supposed 'discrimination' of not allowing Gays in the Military and there has yet to be anyone that could give a good reason as to why the military should have ever changed their stance of gays in the military from the 'Do Ask, See Ya' Later" position of the 1970-1987 time frame that encompassed a couple of my AD hitches.

quote:

at his base in Bahrain after his refusal to hire a prostitute

First, I guess I shouldn't be surprised prostitution exists in Bahrain? Second, and most important, forcing anyone into engaging in sex is criminal if not insane.... regardless of orientation. Those sailors are a disgrace to their uniform and integrity of the US military. It's a result of DA/DT. It allows such torment since the victims have to hide. Just deplorable!
And for all we know, they are sons, grandsons, husbands and fathers... sick.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: reducetension,

UPDATE:

Navy to oust chief involved in Bahrain hazing scandal

The Navy senior chief petty officer at the heart of a scandal over sexually provocative hazing and abuse of junior sailors in Bahrain will be forced to retire in January, two years earlier than planned, a Navy official said Wednesday.

Senior Chief Michael Toussaint, a dog handler assigned to the Naval Special Warfare Development Group in Virginia Beach, also received a letter of censure from the Secretary of the Navy, the harshest administrative action that can be taken against a sailor. The letter will become part of his permanent military record and is likely to affect his retirement pay, said Cmdr. Elissa Smith, a Navy spokeswoman at the Pentagon.

The announcement Wednesday came in response to news reports about an investigation into abusive behavior in the military working dog unit in Bahrain in 2005 and 2006. Sailors told an investigator

Read full article at...

>>>http://hamptonroads.com/2009/10/navy-oust-chief-petty-officer-involved-bahrain-hazing-scandal

quote:

Originally posted by IHAWKER:
The Navy senior chief petty officer...will be forced to retire in January, two years earlier than planned, a Navy official said Wednesday.

...also received a letter of censure from the Secretary of the Navy, the harshest administrative action that can be taken against a sailor. The letter will become part of his permanent military record and is likely to affect his retirement pay...

Hm. This looks to me like actions taken to look good for the civilian press, without sending an unduly harsh message to other potential gay-bashers in the Navy. Forced to retire two years earlier than he planned? But he still gets his full retirement bennies. And how exactly is a letter of censure supposed to affect that pay?

You want to send a message? Court-martial him. Dump him out on his butt with a BCD or dishonorable and no retirement. Or bust him back to E-6 (or lower) to take a smaller piece out of that retirement. This notion of "the harshest administrative action that can be taken" is a mealy-mouthed dodge.

The potential for even MORE gay bashing exists when/if DADT is repealed. The economy is helping recruitments now, but gays serving openly may well hurt it later on. Could it be that Obama is reluctant to repeal it for that reason?

That has not proved to be a factor in any of the other countries and I seriously doubt it will be a factor here.

quote:

Originally posted by 21194237:
The potential for even MORE gay bashing exists when/if DADT is repealed.

I suppose that's possible - but when the gays can openly report the incidents without fear of official reprisals against them, it seems unlikely that any increase will last long.

quote:

The economy is helping recruitments now, but gays serving openly may well hurt it later on.

Also possible, but as IHAWKER notes, other countries have not had that problem. Most of the resistance to gays serving openly does NOT come from the youngest troops - it's from the old fogies. And of course, the same claim was made when the force was racially integrated, yet that seems to have worked out okay.

quote:

Originally posted by BobApril:

quote:

Originally posted by 21194237:
The potential for even MORE gay bashing exists when/if DADT is repealed.

I suppose that's possible - but when the gays can openly report the incidents without fear of official reprisals against them, it seems unlikely that any increase will last long.

quote:

The economy is helping recruitments now, but gays serving openly may well hurt it later on.

Also possible, but as IHAWKER notes, other countries have not had that problem. Most of the resistance to gays serving openly does NOT come from the youngest troops - it's from the old fogies. And of course, the same claim was made when the force was racially integrated, yet that seems to have worked out okay.

You have some empirical evidence suggesting that it's the older vets causing the problems?

quote:

older vets causing the problems

I don't believe the word "problem" was used in conjunction with older vets. It was resistance to gays serving honorably and honestly. Here is some evidence along those lines: A recent CNN/Gallup/USAToday poll of Americans found that 79% said they favored gays serving openly. But among young Americans (18-29), the figure was 91% !

In the recent Military Times "poll" (which even they said was NOT a representative sample of the military, but rather only those of their subscribers (who are primarily older, more senior ranking members) who bothered to answer the question, 58% of active duty troops said they did not want gays to serve openly. Since less than 5% of the respondents were E4 and below , the results from that poll are essentially ALL older military members.

Furthermore, among military retirees answering the Military Times poll, 59% answered NO to gays serving openly, 30% answered yes, and the rest had no opinion.

The figures above constitute pretty good evidence that older veterans and older active duty members have a higher resistance to gays serving openly than do younger members.

quote:

Originally posted by dupontgaf:

quote:

older vets causing the problems

I don't believe the word "problem" was used in conjunction with older vets. It was resistance to gays serving honorably and honestly. Here is some evidence along those lines: A recent CNN/Gallup/USAToday poll of Americans found that 79% said they favored gays serving openly. But among young Americans (18-29), the figure was 91% !

In the recent Military Times "poll" (which even they said was NOT a representative sample of the military, but rather only those of their subscribers (who are primarily older, more senior ranking members) who bothered to answer the question, 58% of active duty troops said they did not want gays to serve openly. Since less than 5% of the respondents were E4 and below , the results from that poll are essentially ALL older military members.

Furthermore, among military retirees answering the Military Times poll, 59% answered NO to gays serving openly, 30% answered yes, and the rest had no opinion.

The figures above constitute pretty good evidence that older veterans and older active duty members have a higher resistance to gays serving openly than do younger members.

Given that the poll MAY have some revelance to the issue of gay bashing, I would suggest that the numbers offer NO solution to the 'problem.' I think we'd all agree that "bashing" is something that occurs among a small minority of folks, although even ONE occurrance is one too many. That said, we know that homosexuals aren't the only ones victimized by bashing. Insofar as gay bashing is concerned though, if orientation is unknown it's less likely that gay-bashing would occur.

quote:

Originally posted by 21194237:

quote:

Originally posted by dupontgaf:

quote:

older vets causing the problems

I don't believe the word "problem" was used in conjunction with older vets. It was resistance to gays serving honorably and honestly. Here is some evidence along those lines: A recent CNN/Gallup/USAToday poll of Americans found that 79% said they favored gays serving openly. But among young Americans (18-29), the figure was 91% !

In the recent Military Times "poll" (which even they said was NOT a representative sample of the military, but rather only those of their subscribers (who are primarily older, more senior ranking members) who bothered to answer the question, 58% of active duty troops said they did not want gays to serve openly. Since less than 5% of the respondents were E4 and below , the results from that poll are essentially ALL older military members.

Furthermore, among military retirees answering the Military Times poll, 59% answered NO to gays serving openly, 30% answered yes, and the rest had no opinion.

The figures above constitute pretty good evidence that older veterans and older active duty members have a higher resistance to gays serving openly than do younger members.

Given that the poll MAY have some revelance to the issue of gay bashing, I would suggest that the numbers offer NO solution to the 'problem.' I think we'd all agree that "bashing" is something that occurs among a small minority of folks, although even ONE occurrance is one too many. That said, we know that homosexuals aren't the only ones victimized by bashing. Insofar as gay bashing is concerned though, if orientation is unknown it's less likely that gay-bashing would occur.

Given that orientation is allowed to be honest then when it does occur, it will be reported and the offender punished, and hopefully discharged, then pretty soon there will be no more incidents (or very few). Heterosexual men rape women in the military. Even ONE occurrance is one too many. Should we ban women from the military because we can not allow rape to occur? Same concept...punish the victims for the crimes committed against them. Sounds foolish, dont you think?

quote:

Originally posted by badbard:

quote:

Originally posted by 21194237:

quote:

Originally posted by dupontgaf:

quote:

older vets causing the problems

I don't believe the word "problem" was used in conjunction with older vets. It was resistance to gays serving honorably and honestly. Here is some evidence along those lines: A recent CNN/Gallup/USAToday poll of Americans found that 79% said they favored gays serving openly. But among young Americans (18-29), the figure was 91% !

In the recent Military Times "poll" (which even they said was NOT a representative sample of the military, but rather only those of their subscribers (who are primarily older, more senior ranking members) who bothered to answer the question, 58% of active duty troops said they did not want gays to serve openly. Since less than 5% of the respondents were E4 and below , the results from that poll are essentially ALL older military members.

Furthermore, among military retirees answering the Military Times poll, 59% answered NO to gays serving openly, 30% answered yes, and the rest had no opinion.

The figures above constitute pretty good evidence that older veterans and older active duty members have a higher resistance to gays serving openly than do younger members.

Given that the poll MAY have some revelance to the issue of gay bashing, I would suggest that the numbers offer NO solution to the 'problem.' I think we'd all agree that "bashing" is something that occurs among a small minority of folks, although even ONE occurrance is one too many. That said, we know that homosexuals aren't the only ones victimized by bashing. Insofar as gay bashing is concerned though, if orientation is unknown it's less likely that gay-bashing would occur.

Given that orientation is allowed to be honest then when it does occur, it will be reported and the offender punished, and hopefully discharged, then pretty soon there will be no more incidents (or very few). Heterosexual men rape women in the military. Even ONE occurrance is one too many. Should we ban women from the military because we can not allow rape to occur? Same concept...punish the victims for the crimes committed against them. Sounds foolish, dont you think?

Perhaps we can agree that we live in an imperfect world/society and that it's unlikely that rapes and gay bashing will EVER be satisfactorily resolved. AND, that BOTH ought to be subject to severe punishment, YES?

quote:

Perhaps we can agree that we live in an imperfect world/society and that it's unlikely that rapes and gay bashing will EVER be satisfactorily resolved. AND, that BOTH ought to be subject to severe punishment, YES?

Yup, that is definitely something we can ALL agree on. No doubt about that. When gays and lesbians are allowed to serve under the exact same rules and regulations as everyone else, EVERYBODY will be subject to the same punishments for harassment and misconduct, including obviously rape and gay-bashing, both of which are felonies under military law. And if gays and lesbians are guilty of harassing their straight counterparts, the already existing rules of conduct are more than sufficient to handle it, just as they are for guys harassing females, or straights harassing gays.