Opponents of Pentagon’s Anti-Gay Policy Detect Harbingers of Change

Opponents of the military’s ban on homosexuals and lesbians in uniform are more confident than ever that the prohibition will fall.

It’s just a matter of time, they say, pointing to a confluence of signs, including:

* The introduction of legislation to kill the policy;

* Release of a congressional study showing the high cost of drumming gays out of the military;

* A promise by Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton to repeal the ban if he is elected; and

* The scandal surrounding the Tailhook Assn.’s 1991 convention.

“We’ve never been at this juncture before,” said Tanya Domi, legislative director for the National Organization of Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Veterans. “We have a presidential nominee who has said he would repeal the policy, a bill in the House, a bill in the Senate. . . . It is really, really remarkable in terms of the history of the issue just how far we have come.”

The change could happen in several ways: An act of Congress, the opinion of a high court or an executive order signed by the President. And while opponents don’t agree on how or when, they do concur that the change is coming--even if Clinton loses.

“The momentum is increasing as every gay service member and every lesbian soldier comes forward, and we believe more members of Congress are personally moved by their stories,” said Robert Bray, spokesman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “It is imminent that this policy will fall.”

The Defense Department policy, which began during World War II, states simply that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service” because it undermines the armed forces’ ability to maintain good order and morale. The Pentagon offers no studies or research to support the policy.

Soldiers and sailors can be dismissed not only for homosexual conduct but also if they “demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct,” according to Pentagon policy.

Some have fought their discharges in court, arguing that the policy is unconstitutional, but only one soldier, Army Sgt. Perry Watkins, has ever won.

The appeals court in Watkins’ case reasoned that he had been candid about his homosexuality from the start of his career and the Army had continued to re-enlist him. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Army’s appeal and Watkins subsequently agreed to retire.

A recent study by the General Accounting Office found that the federal government spent almost half a billion dollars between 1980 and 1990 to kick homosexuals out of the service. The costs included recruiting, training and replacing personnel.

Approximately 1,500 soldiers and sailors are discharged annually for homosexuality, the GAO found.

Some 10% of the population is believed to be homosexual and the military, despite its anti-gay policy, is probably no different, the report said.

Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) introduced a bill in May that would overturn the ban. In July, Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) introduced it in the Senate.

With only a few weeks remaining in the 102nd Congress, Schroeder, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, said she doubts there will be hearings on the bill in 1992. The measure has 72 House co-sponsors and seven in the Senate, but has virtually no chance of passing in an election year.

“We obviously haven’t had any votes on any issues like this, in either the House or the Senate, so it’s hard to know where the middle is,” Schroeder said.

“The main attacks on it have come from the Dornans and the Cunninghams and people like that,” she said, referring to Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove) and Rep. Rand (Duke) Cunningham (R-San Diego), both conservatives and members of the Armed Services panel.

But the measure’s strongest advocates say the bill’s mere existence constitutes one more weapon in a growing arsenal that will be used to topple the ban.

“What it does is it serves as a very real club,” said Rep. Ted Weiss (D-N.Y.), a longtime gay-rights supporter. “It tells the Defense Department that if you don’t do it (overturn the ban), there is the strong possibility that Congress will mandate it. I don’t think any agency likes to be in that kind of position. I think that they will be reviewing the policy.”

But Schroeder disagreed.

“I think the Pentagon’s pretty locked in,” she said. “I don’t think they’re going to do anything unless the legislation passes.”

She pointed to the case of Vice Adm. Jack Fetterman, who was removed in July as the Navy’s chief of naval education and training for allegedly protecting an enlisted staffer accused of homosexual activity.

“Obviously, he thought this was pretty stupid policy,” Schroeder said. “But they so overreacted. They’ve done more to him than they’ve done to people in Tailhook. So it kind of gives you a little window into how passionately they feel about this.”