Military-Gay Issue Reignites a Firestorm

President Clinton got a repeat lesson Wednesday in the dangers of public comment on the volatile issue of gays in the military as his aides scrambled to avoid fire from partisans inflamed by remarks that he made at Tuesday’s press conference.

Clinton advisers said the uproar reflects a fundamental problem they face on the issue--Clinton has persisted in treating service by gays as a question open to normal debate and discussion and has seemed mystified that activists on both sides do not do likewise.

On Tuesday a reporter asked Clinton about the possibility of allowing gays into the military but restricting them from combat assignments. Clinton responded by discussing whether the Constitution would allow such a move. Asked a second time later in the press conference, Clinton said he would wait until Secretary of Defense Les Aspin submits a report to him in July.

That statement, in turn, set off a wave of attention and reaction and speculation about whether Clinton had been trying to float a trial balloon.

White House officials insisted Wednesday that Clinton had not meant to do so. In a nationally televised interview Wednesday night, the President said he meant only that he would keep an open mind until he read Aspin’s report.

“I mean, I asked them to study this,” he said in a CBS interview. “I can’t refuse then to get the results of the study and act like my mind’s made up. I have a presumption against any discrimination based on status alone, but I will listen to any report. . . .”

And Pentagon officials, who have opposed Clinton on the issue in the past, lent credence to that position, saying that--while the idea of restricting assignments for gays has been widely discussed--it has little backing from senior military leaders.

For Clinton, the issue of military gays has been a recurrent headache. During the first two weeks of his Administration, when the subject briefly seemed capable of overwhelming him, “he just didn’t get it,” said one senior aide. “He was very frustrated. He kept going around saying: ‘When is this going to stop?’ ”

It also created considerable consternation among Clinton’s advisers at the time. But now, many appear resigned to the reality that almost any comment by Clinton on the issue, however vague, will guarantee a reaction.

“It’s just going to come up,” said Clinton political adviser James Carville.

On Wednesday, gay and lesbian groups roundly dismissed the separate track idea, saying that the notion was “based solely on prejudice and intolerance.” Several gay leaders, reflecting rising frustration among gay activists, scored Clinton for failing to swat the proposal down and to set forth his own minimum requirements in a compromise.

“We regret that the President missed an opportunity to strongly reaffirm his support” for a clear policy opening the entire military to gay men and lesbians, said Tim McFeeley, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign.

Military officials expressed no more enthusiasm, with experts saying that a separate track would be an “administrative nightmare.”

From the military standpoint, separate assignments would put gays on a par with women, who have been barred by law from service in combat units. At a time when the services are on the defensive about maintaining such distinctions, many officers said they would be hard-pressed to extend such special status to yet another group of service members.

“The concept of trying to develop another group of second-class citizens--I don’t think that’s had any serious backing around here,” said one knowledgeable military officer. “It’s unworkable. It’s both unworkable to the military and an affront to the gay community.”

Worse yet, from the standpoint of senior commanders, the idea of separate assignments for gays clashes with a compromise position military leaders have begun to favor--widely described as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Under that compromise, service members would not be asked their sexual orientation. But gay and lesbian service members would be warned that if they declare their homosexuality openly, they could be subject to dismissal.