Some Hoots, a Few Hurrahs Greet Clinton Policy on Gays in Military : Reaction: Many homosexuals are disappointed that little has changed. In the armed services, some resent the President’s action.

On California’s military bases and at gathering places for gays Monday, a mixture of hoots, resigned sighs and a few cheers greeted President Clinton’s new policy on homosexuals in the military.

It was hard to find anyone on either side of the issue who was truly pleased with Clinton’s answer to months of bitter wrangling over the matter. Service members who did not want any change said they resented the President’s action, while gay men and women said they were disappointed that so little had been changed.

At the same time, some in the gay and lesbian community said that a small step was better than none--and that even though the new policy fell far short of Clinton’s initial promises, it was more than any other President had offered.

“This was a big step today, but it’s not exactly what we wanted. It’s sort of like Rosa Parks moved up one row on the bus. It’s not exactly where she wants to be,” said Ron Smebye, co-founder of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Veterans of America in Orange County and Long Beach.

Other gay and lesbian activists in Southern California, on the other hand, were not so forgiving. “What we have witnessed is a failure in leadership,” complained Rich Jennings, executive director of Hollywood Supports, which promotes gay causes in the entertainment industry. “Clinton has surrendered to the forces of fear and ignorance,” Jennings said at one of several press conferences held by activists condemning the policy.

Monday night, about 350 people gathered in a West Hollywood intersection to protest Clinton’s pronouncement, forcing sheriff’s deputies to reroute traffic.

Chanting “liar,” the crowd blew whistles and waved signs summing up the new policy as “Don’t ask, Don’t tell, Don’t exist!”

On military installations, meanwhile, there was relief.

“Nothing has really changed,” stressed a young sailor who wanted to be identified only as Sean and who was interviewed outside the San Diego Naval Station. “The only real difference is that homosexuals can’t be asked if they’re homosexual. But they still won’t be able to admit they’re homosexual without being nailed. That’s the way it should be. The Navy is no place for gays.”

On the streets of the Castro district, San Francisco’s gay section, Mark Edwardsen, a clothing store salesman, had little use for the new policy, or for Clinton.

“Don’t tell, don’t ask? That’s as bad as it was--or worse,” Edwardsen grumbled. “What does that mean? How do you know what will get you in trouble? . . . It’s not a step forward at all.”

Clinton, Edwardsen continued, “really wimped out. He blew it big time. He should have stood his ground. He should have been more hard-line. . . . I would have been happier if he’d stood his ground from the beginning--even if that meant losing big in Congress. At least he would have defended the principle behind the issue.

“I think he’s alienated people on both sides. He’s alienated the people who supported him on this during the campaign and he’s given his enemies something to attack him on.”

Roy Yackulic, a Del Mar lawyer vacationing in the Castro, was equally disenchanted.

“I don’t see any improvement at all over what we have now,” he said. “This has done nothing. Any attempt by the Clinton Administration to characterize it as a step forward is a joke. I voted for him. I’d like to take my vote back . . . . I think he wants to please everybody and therefore he is unable to take a stand.”

But others in the gay and lesbian community were more understanding.

“Civil rights come in small steps,” said Phil Lobel, who lives in West Hollywood and owns a public relations firm. “I think President Clinton dealt (with the issue) as well as possible. It would have done no one any good to have him stand on that stage alone without the support of anyone in the military . . . I think this is a very positive step in the right direction.”

Andrew Webb, who lives in Hillcrest, a gay enclave in San Diego, was of a like mind.

“The President left an opening for this to become a much better policy,” said Webb, a Coast Guard veteran who also counsels gay sailors stationed in San Diego. Clinton’s “third point said that gays would be allowed to rebut any presumption made by others that they would engage in homosexual conduct simply because they were gay. I think this is a major change. He’s giving gays the opportunity to rebut that presumption simply by saying they would abide by the code of conduct (which prohibits homosexual activity). I don’t think that’s all bad,” said Webb.

“The only people screaming that the policy doesn’t go far enough are the gay rights activists who are not in the military . . . “ Webb added. “Gays in the military are much more conservative. Active duty people have been telling me they don’t want what the activists are screaming for. They recognize that this issue is going to have to be fought over time, piece by piece.”

Some gay people also said that the very public nature of the debate over the issue was all for the good, regardless of the final outcome. “I’m just happy the word ‘gays’ is getting thrown around in so many people’s faces,” said Lisa Botts, owner of Little Frida’s, a lesbian coffee house in West Hollywood.

And a clerk at A Different Drummer Books in Laguna Beach, which caters to feminists, gays and lesbians, said most of the store’s employees and customers expected a compromise.

“This was a very good place to begin and it would have had terrific repercussions all the way down the line if he’d gone all the way in lifting the ban,” Karen Thies said. “It’s something we have to keep working toward. There’s no elation and no real disappointment either, probably, for most people.”

Just as Clinton’s compromise angered some in the gay community, so too was it denounced by some in the armed forces.

“I personally think if (Clinton) was going to lift the ban, he should have gone all the way and lifted it or not at all,” said Staff Sgt. Derwin McGriff, a legal specialist at El Toro.

McGriff expressed concern that the President’s decision would end up hurting, rather than helping to create some understanding of gays and lesbians among non-gay military members. In essence, McGriff said, it did a disservice to both groups because it didn’t stress full protection for the gays, and therefore left the issue a bit up in the air as far as the military is concerned.

At the Long Beach Naval Station, Seaman 3rd Class Michael Nelson hadn’t heard of Clinton’s announcement but said he doesn’t mind working with gay colleagues, as long as they don’t reveal themselves. “As long as I don’t know they’re gay, I’ve got no problem with them” Nelson remarked.