Gay Activists Hail Ruling on Military Policy : Courts: Pentagon officials contend that the appellate decision will not result in monumental changes in Defense Department rules.

Army grunts, the Pentagon argues, put the issue in these terms: Would you want to share a foxhole with one?

Top brass fret over national security: What if foreign agents discovered a top military official was homosexual? Could blackmailers get their hands on U.S. defense secrets?

But now, gay and lesbian activists are expressing confidence that the longstanding Department of Defense policy excluding homosexuals from military service will soon become a relic.

Hailing a federal court ruling as a “monumental” step forward for gay rights, activists on Tuesday went so far as to call on President Bush and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney to abolish the discriminatory policy to avoid a costly court battle that they say the Department of Defense will surely lose.

Pentagon officials, however, suggest that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling Monday was not so monumental after all. Pentagon lawyers, a spokesman said, have in the past successfully defended the policy that has resulted in more than 13,000 discharges for suspected homosexuality in the past 10 years, and they will do so again.

“This is just the beginning,” said Lt. Col. Doug Hart of the Army National Guard. “I can tell you right now we’re going to go to court on it.”

This time it will be different, gay activists promise. In the battle joined on two fronts--the courts and public opinion--gays claim to have taken control of the higher ground.

In a news conference at the Los Angeles offices of the American Civil Liberties Union, gay legal activists said Monday’s ruling in a case concerning the discharge of lesbian Army Capt. Dusty Pruitt was significant for two reasons. One was the court’s declaration that the military now must prove it has a “rational basis” to discriminate against homosexuals. The other was the court’s assertion that it would not accept anti-gay prejudice within military ranks as a valid rationale for the policy.

Pruitt, who was discharged after revealing her homosexuality in a 1983 interview with The Times, was granted a second trial in federal Central District Court in Los Angeles. The appeals court ruling “allows us to force the Pentagon to justify its policy in court,” said Pruitt’s attorney, Mary Newcombe of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

ACLU attorney Jon W. Davidson said the court’s “monumental decision” would lead to “an end to the military’s irrational policy of excluding loyal, dedicated and talented service members from the military.”

Not only is the policy irrational, it is a gross waste of money, Davidson argued. The Gay and Lesbian Military Freedom Project cited a 1983 report by the comptroller general that found that the military spent $180 million from 1973 to 1983 on the training and discharge of 14,311 service members suspected of homosexuality. The men and women had served an average of three years each.

Hart, the Pentagon’s spokesman, said he could not verify that report. He confirmed that from 1982 through June, 1991, the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force had discharged 13,353 people for suspected homosexuality.

The discharges were sanctioned under a policy stating that “the presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the military services; to maintain the public acceptability of military service, and to prevent breaches of security.”

Hart said the policy has been validated in court on several occasions, most recently by the U.S. 7th Circuit Court in 1989.

But the Pentagon has also suffered recent setbacks. In November, 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand the re-enlistment of a 16-year Army veteran, Perry Watkins. The Army had attempted to bar Watkins’ re-enlistment on the grounds he is homosexual.

Gay rights attorneys said they are confident of victory in the Pruitt case because of the court’s rejection of anti-gay prejudice as a rationale for the policy and the Pentagon’s own studies that discount arguments that homosexuals may pose a national security risk.

Recent assertions by the Advocate, a gay magazine, that a prominent civilian Department of Defense official is homosexual illustrates the fallacy of the argument that gays are more likely to compromise security, Davidson said. Cheney has recently voiced doubts about the “national security” argument and has defended the work of the Pentagon official “outed” by the Advocate. The official has neither denied or confirmed the Advocate’s assertions.

Davidson said the presence of gays in prominent positions within the Pentagon also demonstrates the inconsistency of a policy that has resulted in the discharge of thousands of service members.

Newcombe said the court’s ruling enables her to take depositions from Cheney and other Department of Defense officials. The Bush Adminstration, the lawyers said, would be wise to abolish the discriminatory policy, much as President Truman in 1947 decreed an end to racial segregation in the military.

Pruitt, who served as a chaplain in the Army and is now a minister with the Metropolitan Community Church, said she has counseled gay service members who served in World War II, Korea, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf.

The Pentagon would lose this battle, she predicted. “It feels good to be able to know the tide of discrimination is beginning to change,” she said.