Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 18:58:27 -0500 From: Edward Scott Meadows Russell Presents LGB Issues to Congress [This article presents extracts from Nancy Russell's oral testimony on May 4 before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Taken from June 94 VetPride, the newsletter of the Chicago GLBVA.] Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, as National President of Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Veterans of America, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. For the past 16 months we watched as military brass, Members of Congress and the fundamentalist right made the most outrageous, loathsome claims about us and our lives. Evidence used to support the claim that gays in the military would have a negative impact on ``good order and disciplines'' included the videotape ``The Gay Agenda,'' distributed on Capitol Hill by the radical right and in the Pentagon by the Commandant of the Marine Corps. The videotape was based on research by Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute. No one seemed to care that Cameron was expelled from the American Psychological Association in 1983, stripped of professional credentials for breach of APA code of ethics and misuse of research materials and methods. Truth had little place in the Senate hearings. The PERSEREC studies and GAO report of June 1992, which found no basis for continuing the ban, were discounted. The Rand Report, reiterating the findings of previous studies, was deliberately withheld until after announcement of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Clearly, some Congressmen and the Administration didn't want to confuse politics with facts. A media circus filled with rhetoric of fear and debasement took precedence over reason, courage, and truth. The truth is really very simple. Gays in the military have acquitted themselves well. They perform their duty courageously. Their deportment is better than the average. They will continue to serve in the U.S. military and one day they will be properly recognized. Many in Congress will one day look back on their role in codifying Don't Ask, Don't Tell with rightful shame. It is not the American way to legalize discrimination, regardless of how you try to justify it. It takes courage to stand for what you know is right. That is why I would pit the courage of the gay soldier against the macho bully any day. You see, we have to be courageous to continue the fight for our rights in the face of lies, hate and fear. The military claims to treat heterosexual and homosexual misconduct even-handedly. But does it. The Navy agonized over what to do with 133 midshipmen who broke the Annapolis honor code by cheating on an exam and then lying about it. Yet Joe Steffan, a gay midshipman, was expelled from the Academy, not for misconduct, but for refusing to lie. More recently, the Navy, with Administration cooperation, whitewashed the Tailhook scandal and little, if any, punishment was meted out to the hundreds of heterosexual, male officers accused of sexual harassment. Two weeks ago, Admiral Kelso, on whose watch Tailhook occurred, was rewarded with his fourth star at his retirement. even though the admiral was at the convention where the incidents occurred, and the military judge who dismissed charges against remaining officers cited Kelso's culpability, the Administration argued there was no evidence that Kelso saw any misconduct. That same Congress and Administration believe it isn't necessary to have evidence of misconduct to discharge a gay or lesbian service member. To avoid the notion that gays are discharged for status alone, the new policy uses the convoluted reasoning that speech is conduct. To say that you're gay under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is interpreted to mean you have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts. No proof is necessary. The burden of proof is on the accuser in heterosexual misconduct and on the accused in homosexual status. This is not the American way and it flies in the face of a hallowed legal tradition, the presumption of innocence. The ridiculous concept of rebuttable presumption of guilt is reprehensible to the American tradition. Under this policy the military continues to ferret out and persecute gay and lesbian service members. According to a New Republic article dated May 2, 1994, instead of a decrease in discharges for homosexuality in FY 93 there was an increase to 773, compared to 708 in FY 92. Investigators are circumventing the restriction on asking an accused to name other homosexuals by such inventive means as having the accused drive them by the homes of service members they know to b gay. We have years of experience with the military investigative mentality and we predicted correctly that harassment would continue. The Services are capable of being vicious and vindictive in pursuing lesbians and gays. Rules of evidence don't apply, allowing the services to railroad service members to discharge. If that isn't enough, the service member's career is destroyed and every effort is made to see that the individual carries a stigma for the rest of his or her life. The Administration tried to sell Don't Ask, Don't Tell as less discriminatory than before. It is not true. Michelle Benecke of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network will testify to the implementation and impact of the policy on those on active duty. We concur with the statements she will make. Placement of the separation code and narrative reason for discharge on the individual's copy of the DD 214 Form brands the veteran, making it difficult for him/her to get employment or veterans' benefits. Every time the vet presents the DD 214, she/he is identified as gay, further humiliated and deprived of benefits earned in honorable service. Lesbian, gay and bisexual veterans whose character of service entitles them to benefits are reluctant to come forward even without statements on the DD 214 because they're justly apprehensive about the welcome they will receive at facilities providing services to veterans, due to the government's recent statements and actions alone. It is a matter of increasing concern for veteran advocates that fear of disclosing personal information, particularly in medical situations, inhibits and may completely block provision of appropriate medical care. Mr Chairman, in the interest of time, specific recommendations on this and other concerns are presented in our written statement. I appreciate the Subcommittee's attention to our concerns. I must also tell you that the book is not closed on the issue of our acceptance in the military. We will not rest until the ban is lifted once and for all.