HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH : Military Misstep

President Clinton seems to have unnecessarily stepped into a self-created quagmire regarding gays and the military. Tuesday at his first official press conference the President said he “wouldn’t rule out” restricting the duties of gay military personnel.

Clinton’s statement, not surprisingly, pleased neither foes nor supporters of the ban against homosexuals in the armed services. Proponents of the ban said such a compromise could create a new set of complications. “This is not going to resolve the issue,” said one military sociologist. “Does that mean that gays would be treated like women and not sent into combat?”

“This would not be compromise, this would be capitulation,” an advocate of lifting the ban said, adding that barring gays and lesbians from certain duties would create a separate and unequal--and potentially unconstitutional--situation.

It’s also difficult to see how segregating military duties according to sexual orientation would fit with Clinton’s January suspension of a directive that required the military to ask recruits their sexual orientation. What’s the option then--voluntary segregation?

On Wednesday, the President’s spokeswoman was quick to clarify that Clinton was “not . . . considering discriminating against gays. We said we are committed to looking at a number of issues and exploring them fully.”

Fine. But what the President needs to explore most is a way to rediscover his initial stand, which was that military personnel ought to be judged on the basis of job performance and behavior--not sexual orientation.