COMPARISON OF CAMPAIGN FOR MILITARY SERVICE, CONGRESSMAN FRANK, AND SENATOR NUNN PROPOSALS REGARDING GAY MEN, LESBIANS AND BISEXUALS IN THE MILITARY *** CAMPAIGN FOR MILITARY SERVICE PROPOSAL *** * QUESTIONS REGARDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION: POLICY: Individuals entering the armed services, or undergoing security clearances, would not be asked if they were gay. Off-duty conduct, such as going to a gay bar or being seen with another gay person, would not permit a question regarding the person's homosexuality. On base, gay literature and photographs of partners would also not trigger questions. RESULT: This is a true "don't ask" policy. That is, there are no inadvertent actions that a gay person could take on- base (e.g., writing in a letter or a journal that he or she is gay), and no intentional actions taken off-base (e.g., throwing a party with a gay lover) that would permissibly trigger a question regarding the person's homosexuality. * SPEECH: POLICY: A person could tell anyone that he or she is gay, on-base or off-base, privately or publicly. RESULT: This approach allows gay people to live honestly and with dignity in the military and will provide them with real and effective security. As a practical matter, most gay people in the military will share information about themselves discreetly. There is no evidence that knowledge that a person is gay (either through private or public speech) will affect unit cohesion. * CONDUCT/MISCONDUCT: POLICY: Would allow private, consensual sex between gay adults, off-base. Would have strict rules against misconduct, such as sexual harassment and fraternization. Would apply current rules against public manifestations of affection, on-base or in uniform, even-handedly between gay and straight people, with traditional discretion allowed to commanding officers. RESULT: This allows gay people to have private, fulfilling lives, just like straight people. This approach does not condone misconduct, such as sexual harassment, nor does it establish an unnecessary separate behavioral code for gay displays of affection. * BAN LIFTED? YES, because gay people cannot be discharged for acknowledging they are gay or for engaging in private gay conduct. Gay people, like straight people, can be discharged for sexual misconduct, such as harassment, nonconsensual sex, or fraternization. **** FRANK PROPOSAL **** * QUESTIONS REGARDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION: POLICY: Similar to the CMS proposal. Individuals entering the armed services, or undergoing security clearances, would not be asked if they were gay. Off-duty conduct would also not trigger questions regarding the person's homosexuality. On base, gay literature and photographs of partners would also not trigger questions. RESULT: Like the CMS approach, this is a true "don't ask" policy. * SPEECH: POLICY: A person could privately tell a co-worker that he or she is gay. The person could also act in a manner off- base that made it clear the person is gay (e.g., appear at a gay event with a lover). But the person could not announce in a very "public" manner on base that he or she is gay. RESULT: Personal honesty is somewhat advanced by this approach because people can be honest with their coworkers. But an atmosphere of fear will still be maintained: when will a commander consider the speech too "public" and punish the gay person? Any restriction on saying that one is gay reduces the basic dignity of that person and leaves open the potential for abuse of power. * CONDUCT/MISCONDUCT POLICY: Would allow private, consensual sex between gay adults, off-base. PROBABLE POLICY: Would not allow public manifestations of affection between gay people on base or in uniform. (May have separate rules to this effect.) Would have strict rules against misconduct, such as sexual harassment and fraternization. RESULT: This allows gay people to have private, off-duty lives, like straight people have. This approach does not condone misconduct, such as sexual harassment. A separate behavioral code regarding gay displays of affection, however, is problematic because it is unnecessary given existing rules. * BAN LIFTED? UNCLEAR, because although gay people cannot be discharged for privately acknowledging they are gay or for engaging in private, off-base gay conduct, they may be disciplined for "public" statements or conduct while on base, on duty or in uniform. *** NUNN PROPOSAL *** * QUESTIONS REGARDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION: POLICY: Individuals entering the armed services would not be asked whether they are homosexual. POSSIBLE POLICY: Perhaps people would not be asked during security clearances whether they are homosexual. It is unclear if going to a gay bar, reading a gay magazine, or attending a gay rights activity would trigger an investigation of whether the person is gay. RESULT: A commanding officer could always still ask a servicemember if he or she were gay. If the person were gay and chose to answer honestly, the person would be discharged. There would be no discretion to this discharge. * SPEECH: POLICY: A person could not tell any co-worker, superior or subordinate that he or she is gay. A person could not engage in any action, on-base or off-base, that would indi- cate the person is gay. RESULT: In most cases, gay people in the military have not told others they are gay. Instead, other people have told on them --based on an overheard conversation, reading the person's letters, or just suspecting the person. This approach forces people to live an ongoing lie, directly contrary to the military values of integrity and honesty, and maintains an ongoing fear of disclosure for gay people. * CONDUCT/MISCONDUCT: POLICY: Would not allow any private, consensual sex between gay adults, on-base or off-base. Any homosexual sex would be grounds for administrative discharge; homosexual sodomy (oral or anal sex) would be grounds for criminal prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). RESULT: This effectively maintains the ban for everyone other than celibate gay people, which is unacceptable. This approach also ignores the fact that straight people engage in oral sex at the same incidence as gay people (which is equally prohibited by the UCMJ as sodomy) but such acts are not currently criminally prosecuted by the military. * BAN LIFTED? NO, because gay people can still be discharged for acknowledging they are gay or if found to have engaged in private, consensual gay sex. * * * * Prepared by the Legal/Policy Department of the Campaign for Military Service. 2707 Massachusetts Ave, NW Washington, DC 20009. (202) 265-6666.