Clinton Compromises, Partially Lifts Gay Ban : Military: In deal with Nunn, service members may be punished, but not discharged, for sexual orientation. Full repeal is delayed at least 6 months.

Acknowledging that he was settling for less than he wanted, President Clinton announced a compromise Friday that will partially lift the ban on homosexuals serving in the military but leave gay men and lesbians in legal jeopardy for at least another six months.

Clinton said he will go further this summer, issuing an executive order to lift the ban altogether. In the intervening months, the military is to stop asking new recruits about their sexual orientation and is no longer to discharge service members solely on the basis of sexual orientation.

Clinton gave Secretary of Defense Les Aspin until July 15 to study the issues raised by integrating gays into the military and to draft an executive order.

But at least for the next six months--in a concession demanded by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.)--commanders may transfer gays to less desirable units and the military will be allowed to punish gays with all steps short of a formal discharge.

That punishment can include taking homosexuals off active duty and assigning them to unpaid standby-reserve status, an option Nunn demanded as a final concession before agreeing to the deal, officials said.

Nunn and military leaders wanted those measures in an effort to discourage gays and lesbians from openly declaring their homosexuality during the six-month interim.

Military leaders fear that if a flood of homosexuals reveal their sexual orientation during that period, it could cause disciplinary problems in what has become an emotionally charged atmosphere and, if the ban survives permanently, the military courts could be clogged with discharge cases.

Supporters of the ban also believe that if a large number of troops with admirable service declared that they are homosexuals, they could build popular sympathy for abolishing the ban.

Clinton called his policy a “dramatic step forward” in the “history of civil rights advancements.”

At the same time, he conceded that “this compromise is not everything I would have hoped for, or everything that I have stood for, but it is plainly a substantial step in the right direction.”

The compromise, he said, “will allow us to move forward on other terribly important issues affecting far more Americans.”

White House Communications Director George Stephanopoulos conceded that Clinton was forced to make concessions to Nunn to prevent the rest of the President’s legislative program from being derailed in Congress.

“He was not willing to gum up all of Congress for this issue,” Stephanopoulos said.

In separate press conferences on Capitol Hill, Republican leaders said they still plan to ask for a Senate vote on a measure that would tie Clinton’s hands by writing the gay ban into law, but Nunn and Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) confidently predicted that Clinton’s concessions will give them the votes to defeat such a move.

Assuming that Clinton goes ahead with his plans to issue an executive order, he will almost certainly have to fight the battle anew this summer.

At a Capitol Hill press conference, Nunn, who repeatedly noted that the White House had bent to the conditions he insisted on, served notice that he remains opposed to lifting the ban and suggested that hearings he plans to hold on the question are not likely to alter that view.

“I don’t have any present intention of changing my mind,” he said.

But for now, Clinton aides were content to have put off a final confrontation they almost certainly would have lost. “He stuck by his principles,” said one senior aide, referring to Clinton. “We bought ourselves some time.”

Gen. Colin L. Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Clinton “has given us a direction to move in, and we are going to be moving in that direction.” Defense Department officials said explicit orders carrying out Clinton’s instructions will be drafted over the weekend and sent into the field early next week.

Clinton also said he welcomed Thursday’s court ruling in the case of Navy Petty Officer Keith Meinhold, who was discharged last August for being gay.

In Los Angeles, U.S. District Judge Terry Hatter Jr. declared the military ban on homosexuals unconstitutional and ordered Meinhold reinstated.

“I agree with the principle embodied in the case,” Clinton said.

In addition, he said, “it makes the practical point I have been making all along, which is that there is a not insignificant chance that this matter would ultimately be resolved in the courts” and that the military should, therefore, seek to compromise now.

Gay groups expressed mixed feelings about the compromise.

The new policy “is a terrifically important first step,” said William B. Rubenstein, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Lesbian and Gay-Rights Project. The important thing is that Clinton reaffirmed the principle that “ability, and not prejudice, should govern,” he said.

Tim McFeeley, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign Fund, a gay political action group, said he was disappointed about the delay in issuing a full executive order, but “we understand the political realities which compelled the President to accept this compromise.”

Republican senators, who teamed up with military leaders to force a confrontation over the issue, denounced Clinton’s action. “The so-called Clinton compromise is nothing more than political damage control for a besieged White House,” said Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.). “It’s a big mistake.”

Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), the senior GOP member on the Armed Services Committee, said that even if the Republicans now lack the numbers to win on the Senate floor, they should still proceed with plans to force the issue to a vote. “Win or lose,” he said, “it’s the right position to take.”

Republicans sense the potential for political gains. Polls show that a majority of the public is opposed to Clinton’s position--although by a relatively small margin. More important, the issue has proved very successful in rallying the conservative troops who have been the most reliable foot soldiers--and financial contributors--to Republican campaigns.

At the same time, a press conference called by the GOP to denounce Clinton demonstrated the two-edged nature of the military policy toward gays. Thurmond faced a barrage of questions from reporters comparing his opposition to gays in the armed forces with his objections to integrating blacks into the military in the 1940s.

“There’s no opposition to blacks in the military. That’s all settled years ago,” the 89-year-old Thurmond said angrily.

And Clinton did his best during his announcement to try to reshape the public debate over the issue, which for the last week has been dominated by the views of military leaders and their congressional supporters.

“The issue is not whether there should be homosexuals in the military,” Clinton said. “Everyone concedes that there are. The issue is whether men and women who can and have served with real distinction should be excluded from military service solely on the basis of their status. And I believe they should not.

“American citizens who want to serve their country should be able to do so unless their conduct disqualifies them from doing so,” he said.

The issue of conduct--and what restrictions should be placed on gay and lesbian service members if Clinton does lift the ban--likely will dominate hearings that Nunn and perhaps other congressional leaders plan to hold this spring. In addition, Clinton has directed Aspin to prepare a report on how best to integrate homosexuals into the services and what actual problems may be posed.

Gay leaders, along with Clinton, repeatedly have said that they accept the principle that service members should be disqualified if they engage in sexual misconduct--harassment of others, improper fraternization between officers and enlisted men, unwanted solicitations of sex and so on. But they insist that those rules should be applied to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

Other issues the military will have to contend with involve how to balance the presence of acknowledged homosexuals with the privacy rights of heterosexual soldiers who may object to sharing sleeping quarters, shower facilities or other close settings with gays.

For those who in the months ahead do proclaim their homosexuality or are found to be gay, the new policy offers few protections. Commanders will still be allowed to order punitive transfers and to begin discharge proceedings.

However, under the new rules, the Justice Department will have the right to suspend those proceedings before a service member is discharged.

Times staff writer Melissa Healy contributed to this story.

Key Elements on Ending Ban

Here are key elements in President Clinton’s announcement Friday on ending the ban on openly gay people serving in the military:

Defense Secretary Les Aspin has until July 15 to draft an executive order that would end the current policy of excluding people from the military solely because they are gay. The order also would establish strict standards of sexual conduct for all members of the military.

Discharges of gay members of the military will be suspended until the policy question is resolved. In the interim, gay soldiers in the process of being discharged will be removed from active duty and shifted to standby reserve status.

The government will stop legal proceedings to discharge gay members of the military.

Recruiters will stop asking enlistees about their sexual orientation.

Source: Associated Press