Gays in the Military: Sensible Compromise? : ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t listen, don’t investigate’

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) last week proposed a compromise that he believes would end the divisive and distracting debate on gays in the military. Depending on the yet to be disclosed details of his proposal, he may have found a way to make some palpable progress on this issue and perhaps end the gridlock and fear-mongering. He may have found a way to call a temporary timeout that allows the Clinton Administration to move on to pressing problems like the economy.

But like other incremental steps that fall far short of true parity, Frank’s proposal will not end the debate. In some respects, it even could exacerbate an unfair double standard of military conduct.

Frank, who is openly homosexual, favors allowing gays and lesbians to remain in the military as long as they do not reveal their sexual orientation while on duty. They would, however, be able to conduct an openly homosexual lifestyle while off base with no fear of investigation or reprisal.

“It’s a policy that says, ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell, and don’t listen, and don’t investigate,’ ” Frank says. “Basically the policy is: ‘Don’t start, don’t get into the whole thing.’ ”

His compromise partially lifts the current ban on homosexuals serving in the military. That policy has been used to justify the persecution and discharge of gay men and women in uniform, however discreetly they conducted their private lives and however honorably they served their country.

But Frank’s plan falls considerably short of President Clinton’s correct goal of allowing homosexuals to serve openly. It is a compromise that satisfies neither those who believe that gay men and women do not belong in uniform nor those who believe, as The Times does, that an individual’s sexual orientation alone is irrelevant to a job, in the military or elsewhere.

The compromise could be an administrative nightmare. Military service has long been regarded as a 24-hour-a-day job. When deployed to combat during wartime, military personnel frequently are subject to restrictions around the clock; they often do not have private time. If someone in such a setting were to do something that might be construed as “openly homosexual,” what action would be taken?

Just as difficult would be resolving the inevitable clashes between the standards that would prevail on duty and those that could prevail off duty.

What happens if on-base gossip about off-base behavior jeopardizes a person’s on-base job assignment or promotion?

Frank, a veteran politician, may be right in saying that there are not enough votes in Congress to completely lift the ban on gays in the military and that his approach offers a chance for real progress. But his compromise also may significantly increase the pressure for true parity between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

It will also increase the pressure on the military brass to articulate a new standard of appropriate sexual conduct by service personnel, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

That’s what Clinton originally proposed as a way to end discrimination against gays as well as the harassment of women in uniform. And that should still be the President’s ultimate goal.