Prudence, Yes, but No Retreat : Clinton should eventually end military gay ban

President-elect Bill Clinton has restated his intention to order an end to the armed services’ ban on known homosexuals, though he now makes clear that he will consult with military leaders before acting.

What has become apparent is that Clinton’s plan has fueled a small firestorm of protest. Within the military some officers are anonymously threatening to resign rather than enforce an order from their commander in chief to lift the ban. Some influential members of Congress, such as Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), Armed Services Committee chairman--as well as respected military leaders like Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Colin L. Powell--urge caution in revising the policy.

The opposition is not unanticipated. Clinton aims to bring about change in an institution that--like armed forces all around the world--is inherently conservative and inclined to oppose change, whether in doctrine or social policies. President Harry S. Truman’s 1948 executive order to end discrimination in the armed forces was resented and resisted, and it took years to achieve its goal. Clinton must be prepared for a fight.

But he goes into that fight on the right side. He believes that the only proper standard by which homosexuals or anyone else in the military should be judged is behavior , by what they do rather than what they are. Misbehave, break the rules, impinge on the freedoms of others and risk the prescribed punishment. Otherwise, a person should have the right to be left alone, in the military as well as in the larger society.

Supporters of the ban on homosexuals in the armed services argue that military life involves special circumstances and presents special challenges, and that in this environment homosexuals are a possible threat to good order and morale. Partially underlying that argument is a fear that homosexuals are or may be uniquely promiscuous, and so a sexual threat to their peers. But where is the evidence to support such a conclusion? If anything, the evidence is to the contrary. The armed services have always had homosexuals in their ranks; military authorities cannot point to serious problems involving their sexual behavior. That sexual promiscuity and predatoriness do exist in the armed forces has been shown by recent investigations. But those problems have exclusively involved heterosexual behavior.

Clinton nonetheless must listen to and respond to the concerns of military leaders, for whether or not those concerns are valid they do reflect a facet of military culture. He may even find it politically necessary to consider a short-term study commission to accommodate people like Nunn and Powell. But he must also respond to the imperatives of legal fairness, which require finally ending a policy based on prejudice.