Aides Say Clinton to End Prosecution of Military’s Gays : Defense: The President will also halt questions about recruits’ sexual orientation. A formal order lifting the ban on homosexuals will be delayed as hearings are held.

President Clinton plans to issue a policy order as early as today that will formally direct the military to halt new prosecutions of homosexual members of the armed services and to cease asking new recruits about their sexual orientation, White House officials said Wednesday.

At the same time, Clinton will withhold for at least six months a formal executive order lifting the ban on gays in the military, the officials said--part of a move designed to give Clinton time to try to build public and congressional support for his position.

But despite two hours of meetings at the White House with Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services Committee--Clinton’s third huddle with congressional leaders in three days--it remained unclear whether his move would succeed in meeting the objections of powerful members of his own party, particularly Senate Armed Services Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.).

“It’s not a done deal,” Nunn told reporters after the meeting. “We do not have anything in writing at this point.” Officials said that, although Clinton hopes to announce the new policy this afternoon, his statement, which already has been delayed once, could be postponed further as he continues to seek compromise to prevent a potentially damaging clash with Congress on an issue far removed from the economic problems he hopes to make the focus of his new presidency.

Wednesday’s meeting with Nunn appeared to have produced agreement on a six-month period of congressional hearings and consultation over the explosive issue. And that in turn is likely to forestall, at least for the present, an incipient effort by congressional Republicans to push through legislation enacting into law the present administrative ban on gays in the armed forces.

What remained unclear, however, was whether Nunn and other restive Democrats are prepared in the end to accept Clinton’s commitment to abolish the longstanding ban on gays in uniform. That is, are they willing to have the agreed-upon six months of consultation focus on how to implement the President’s promised change, or will they try to insist that the basic policy of ending the ban itself be open to debate?

“Let’s don’t legislate on something and, in exchange, let’s have the Executive show some restraint,” Nunn said after the White House meeting.

But White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers, speaking as the meeting with Nunn was ending, said Clinton would not yield on the basic principle. “I think (Clinton) will make it pretty clear,” she said. “The President has decided that he is going to take action to rescind the ban. The President is not willing to compromise on that principle . . . . He’s willing to pay the price.”

Under the new plan expected to be outlined by Clinton, the dozen or so court cases involving gays who were discharged and are seeking reinstatement would be frozen for the six-month review period.

White House Communications Director George Stephanopoulos also said the final policy will include a strict code of conduct outlining acceptable behavior by gays in the military. He acknowledged that the President might approve a double standard in which gays would be held to a stricter code of behavior than heterosexuals.

Wednesday’s emergency meeting came hours after Nunn, in a speech on the Senate floor, made a bid to dominate the sensitive political issue.

Nunn, Congress’ most influential expert on the military, said he plans to begin hearings on the issue in March. Until those are finished--a process that could take months, given the length of his stated agenda--Nunn said he will oppose “any kind of action that can be final or could be perceived as final.”

Nunn sought to bury the proposal to lift the ban under a volley of specific questions--43 in all--and suggested that neither Clinton nor his defense secretary had considered those questions.

“Too many times, we in the political world send down edicts and don’t think about the implications of the things that have to follow,” Nunn said in an impassioned address. “These are not frivolous questions . . . . I would also urge that the White House and the President and all of his advisers, including my good friend the secretary of defense, think through these questions very carefully before they take any kind of action that can be final.

“It’s in everybody’s interest to see if we can resolve this issue through consensus rather than confrontation. There’ll be plenty of time later for confrontation” if the Clinton Administration’s plan fails to protect the military’s morale and its readiness, he said.

Nunn suggested that he had received assurances that no “final action” would be taken until his hearings had ended and Congress had voted on the issue. Earlier Wednesday, Nunn indicated that he would consider it to be prejudicial to the outcome of the consultations--and therefore tantamount to “final action”--if Clinton continued to declare that the consultations would end in his issuance of an executive order.

But White House aides insisted Wednesday night that Clinton maintains his commitment to lifting the ban.

Defense Secretary Les Aspin, standing at Nunn’s side Wednesday night, said the Administration still hopes to draft and issue an executive order lifting the ban in six months. “The issue under discussion is still what happens in the interim period,” Aspin said.

Despite Nunn’s implied warning to go slow, Republican senators insisted that they will attach an amendment soon to a bill--possibly a popular bill providing for family leave--that would write into law the military’s current policy of excluding homosexuals.

The family leave bill, which would provide workers with up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborns or sick relatives, is a high priority for the Clinton Administration. The addition of an amendment barring gays from the military would leave Clinton the unpalatable choice of vetoing the bill or accepting a definitive ban on homosexuals in the military.

Nunn told reporters after his speech: “I’d like to have no final, decisive action by the President and no final, decisive legislation by Congress.”

“The speech really throws everything up in the air,” said Eric Rosenthal, political director of the Human Rights Campaign Fund, an organization active in promoting gay and lesbian rights causes. Rosenthal said that before Nunn’s speech, his group counted as many as 40 senators who would likely back Clinton in an early Senate showdown over the issue. Another two dozen were undecided, Rosenthal said.

In the House, Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove) on Wednesday introduced the first piece of legislation that would bar homosexuals from service in the military. Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), who appeared with veterans groups Wednesday to denounce Clinton’s drive to open the military to homosexuals, is expected to introduce the same bill in the Senate if Republicans do not prevail on the issue in an amendment.

Another Californian, Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-Berkeley), who formally became chairman of the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, called the controversy over lifting the ban “a tempest in a teapot,” and said Clinton should “step forward, keep his promise and get on with business.”

But at the White House, some Clinton aides spoke of compromise. One adviser acknowledged that Clinton is considering a deal that would allow the Pentagon to draft one code of conduct for homosexuals and another for heterosexual members of the military. Although such a compromise could dilute Clinton’s implied promise of equal treatment for gay and straight service members, it likely would quell concerns of military leaders that homosexuals in the service would use a lifting of the ban as an opportunity to “flaunt” their sexual orientation.

At the same time, Nunn appeared to offer his own support for a compromise favored by some military leaders. Under this deal, recruits would not be asked their sexual orientation, and gay men and lesbians would be permitted to serve as long as they did not openly declare their homosexuality.

“Gen. Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated that in view of the unique conditions of military service, active and open homosexuality by members of the armed forces would have a very negative effect on military morale and discipline,” Nunn said. “I agree with Gen. Powell’s assessment.”

In Congress, Republicans appeared to savor an opportunity to inflict a serious political wound on the new President, only a week after his splashy inauguration. Dole, appearing with representatives of two dozen veterans groups opposing an end to the ban, joked that Clinton’s honeymoon was so short that “he only needed one suitcase.”

Dole, who was seriously wounded in World War II, also made repeated indirect reference to the fact that Clinton avoided military service, an issue that dogged the President during the campaign. Referring to the assembled veterans behind him, the minority leader described them as “men who have had the experience, unlike the experience President Clinton did not have, in the military.”

A senior GOP aide said Republicans are already filing this away as an issue for 1996. After promising to tackle such overriding issues as the economy and health care reform, the aide said: “This is the first thing he is stressing. It’s good ammunition to have. It’s never going to go away.”

Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), charged that a move to lift the ban on gays will hurt the military’s ability to recruit and retain troops. “Sodomy is against the law anyway. It is not only indecent and wrong, but will make mothers and fathers not want to send their sons and daughters into the military,” he said.

Democrats, meanwhile, are dismayed that this issue is dominating Clinton’s first full week in office. They are clearly fearful that it could damage his ability to push through other programs more central to his domestic agenda.

“I hope it doesn’t become a defining issue for this Administration . . . . It sure would have been better to put this issue off until later,” Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) said in an interview.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Sen. J. James Exon (D-Neb.) said: “I am afraid that this sort of an issue is going to cause gridlock in the President’s first two weeks in office.”

THE TIMES POLL

A Challenge for Clinton?

Building a consensus for letting openly gay people in the military will be a challenge for President Clinton given the sharp divisions in public opinion on the issue. A Times national survey conducted Jan. 14-17 shows that, overall, Americans split almost evenly on the question, with 45% in favor and 47% opposed. But those who oppose the idea are far more committed to their feelings than its supporters: 39% express strong opposition while just 22% strongly favor the policy. Firm opponents also greatly outnumber enthusiastic backers in key swing political groups Clinton needs to woo, such as men, independents, moderates and Ross Perot voters.

Do you approve or disapprove of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the armed forces of the United States?

Approve Approve Disapprove Disapprove Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Overall 22% 23% 8% 39% Men 18% 21% 8% 46% Women 25% 25% 8% 33% Age 18-25 29% 21% 10% 30% 26-64 21% 24% 8% 40% 65 and over 17% 22% 8% 39% Democrats 27% 26% 7% 31% Republicans 14% 14% 12% 55% Independents 21% 25% 8% 39% Liberals 39% 26% 6% 23% Moderates 21% 27% 8% 34% Conservatives 8% 19% 10% 57% Voted for Clinton 30% 30% 7% 24% Voted for Bush 11% 12% 9% 62% Voted for Perot 15% 33% 9% 40%

Source: Los Angeles Times Poll of 1,733 adults nationwide, Jan. 14-17. Margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Numbers do not add to 100 because “don’t know” responses are omitted.