Issue Explodes Into an All-Out Lobbying War

The video begins, as many do these days, with an ominous warning, in bold white letters on a plain black background: “The following program contains sexually explicit material. Viewer discretion advised.”

But this film is different from the usual video store fare. A 15-minute video labeled “The Gay Agenda,” it is being circulated among members of Congress by active-duty military personnel as part of the dispute over whether gays should be allowed in the military. A Marine spokesman said Wednesday that Gen. Carl Mundy Jr., the commandant of the Marine Corps, also has distributed copies to other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“The Marines are passing it out like popcorn,” says a former Pentagon official.

The professionally produced program depicts partly clad homosexuals writhing on floats in a parade, a physician providing a graphic analysis of the asserted medical dangers of homosexual acts and children apparently crying at the sight of what are depicted as leering gays.

Col. John Shotwell, chief spokesman for the Marine Corps, flatly denied that the service has any responsibility for the film. But whoever is behind it, the no-holds-barred video illustrates the intensity of the lobbying effort surrounding President Clinton’s proposal to end a decades-long ban against gays in the military. The battle has exploded almost overnight into a full-scale war over social values that is pitting two formidable lobbies--the military and gays groups--against one another.

For gays, the skirmish is unlike any other.

“These are subjects that have been in the closet, if you will, for 50 years, and finally we are having them aired,” said Tom Stoddard, a New York attorney who once headed Lambda, a leading gay rights organization.

Stoddard said that gays have been lobbying for their cause “the old-fashioned way”--by sending cards and letters and making telephone calls and by visiting lawmakers from their states and home districts.

They also have been enlisting aid from liberal groups, such as People for the American Way, which has defended gay rights activists against criticism from veterans’ groups and the religious right.

David Mixner, a prominent gay activist and Clinton fund raiser, predicted that the battle could prove decisive in determining the strength of the gay and lesbian movement.

“The issue has propelled the gay and lesbian community into a major civil rights movement,” Mixner said. If it wins, “it will make us a part of the mainstream. We will become a part of greater society, with a minimum of disruption.”

Erle Cocke, a former national commander of the American Legion, recalled that for the military and veterans’ groups, planning for the fight began in mid-July, when Clinton first began winning attention over his pledge to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military.

Cocke said that Herschel Gober, the former Arkansas state American Legion chief whom Clinton has appointed deputy secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, had warned the Clinton team “from day one that they were going to be out on a limb on this issue.”

But, Cocke said, no one on the transition team seemed to be paying attention.

The effectiveness of the anti-gay onslaught earlier this week took the capital by surprise--and by storm. On Monday, the Joint Chiefs of Staff made plain their opposition directly to Clinton. On Tuesday, Congress openly revolted. On Wednesday, gays began openly fighting back.

By mid-afternoon Wednesday, Capitol Hill was swarming with troops from both sides--the veterans, identifiable by their carefully lettered blue and maroon overseas caps, and the gay rights supporters, recognizable because of their placards. The Capitol switchboard was flooded with calls.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) met the press with leaders of 24 veterans’ groups--and, not incidentally, recalled Clinton’s efforts to escape the draft in the 1960s.

Military sources reported that enlisted men at some U.S. military bases have been conducting organized call-ins to senators and congressmen to express their opposition to the Clinton proposal. The activity intensified after the President’s meeting with the Joint Chiefs on Monday.

Gay activists acknowledge that they have been slower to mobilize than their opposition--which includes not only military and veterans’ groups, but the religious right.

“We don’t have television networks,” said Mixner. “You can flash a telephone number on Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell’s show and generate calls. It’s a great organizing tool and its tax-exempt, too. We don’t have that.”

But gays insisted that the stridence of the opposition--and tactics such as the video being distributed by the military officers--is beginning to spur their supporters to speak out more vehemently.

Indeed, the gay rights groups won a surprising ally on Tuesday when Sen. Alfonse M. D’Amato (R-N.Y.) said that he favors lifting the ban on gays in the military. Gays also have garnered some support from Sen. Charles S. Robb (D-Va.), a former Marine.

Even so, some analysts worry that the split already has become so sharp that it could sour the relationship between Clinton and the military for the rest of his term and possibly impede other major changes--such as faster spending cutbacks--that he has proposed.

Times staff writer David Lauter contributed to this story.

MILITARY DEBATE: The controversy over gays is a hot topic at U.S. bases. A16

Gays in the Military: Pro and Con

President Clinton is considering lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military. Here are some arguments from people on both sides of the issue:

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

Morale in the armed forces is already low as service personnel watch bases closing around the nation and fear for their own futures in the military. Lifting a ban on homosexuality in the service would make this problem worse.

The presence of gays and lesbians would be “detrimental to good order and discipline,” mainly because of privacy issues, says Gen. Colin L. Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Clinton’s plan to lift the ban would link it to a strict code of conduct. But opponents say that would be unworkable because it would require gays to make “the equivalent of a pledge of celibacy,” Army Maj. Melissa Wells-Petry wrote in her book, “Exclusion: Homosexuals and the Right to Serve.”

Homosexuals can pose a security risk. Wells-Petry argues that allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military would not eliminate the potential for them to be targeted by hostile intelligence agencies, since not all “homosexuals desire the disclosure of their sexual preference.”

Allowing avowed homosexuals to enlist in the armed forces could raise the rate of AIDS and HIV infection. The rate now is lower than that of the civilian population.

Recruiting would be undermined by fears that service people would be exposed to incidents of homosexual behavior.

Devoutly religious service people would resign rather that serve with known homosexuals.

*

ARGUMENTS FOR

Order and discipline in the armed forces should not hinge on sexual orientation, but rather on behavior, which can be controlled by codes of conduct.

Gays and lesbians are in the military now and have been for generations. These men and women would be able to stop hiding their identity.

Concerns about heterosexual personnel sharing barracks and showers with their openly homosexual colleagues have been magnified. Nations like the Netherlands and Israel have allowed avowed homosexuals in their military for decades, with only minor problems.

The military could benefit from the service of homosexuals who previously felt inhibited about signing up.

“We have nothing closer to an apartheid law than this military ban,” argues David Mixner, a Los Angeles consultant and civil rights veteran.

“What we’re really seeing is the last major chapter in the 200-year-old story of civil rights . . . the last major unfinished business in that struggle,” said Rep. Gerry E. Studds (D-Mass.), a gay congressman.

The debate recalls the furor over integration of the armed forced 45 years ago. Arguments against integration were cast aside, and arguments against gays and lesbians are equally irrelevant.

From Times staff and wire reports