C M S The Campaign for Military Service 2027 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Voice: 202-265-6666 Fax:202- 265-7393 Email: lift-the-ban@access.digex.com ----------------------------------------- LIFT THE BAN / LIFT THE PHONE The Congressional hearings start on March 29th. Now, more then ever your calls are URGENTLY needed. You can right the balance. Call your Congressperson and Senator NOW! US Congress Hotline: 202-224-3121 ----------------------------------------- FACT SHEET GAY MEN, LESBIANS AND BISEXUALS IN THE MILITARY * THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY BAN The Department of Defense (DOD) excludes all gay men, lesbians and bisexuals from serving in the armed forces. DOD Directive 1332.14 states flatly that: "Homosexuality is incompat- ible with military service." The Directive also states that: "The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission." Under the Reagan Administration, not only homosexual conduct but a servicemember's mere identification as being gay, lesbian or bisexual became grounds for dismissal. * THE MILITARY'S RATIONALE FOR THE POLICY The DOD's stated rationale for the policy is not based on an argument that gay people are not good fighting soldiers. The military now openly acknowledges that there are thousands of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals who are currently serving in the armed forces with valor and merit. Instead, the military's argument is based on simple discrim- ination. Without presenting any verified justifications, the exclusion policy merely asserts that the following elements in the military will inevitably be undermined by the presence of openly gay personnel: discipline, good order and morale; mutual trust and confidence; unit cohesion; the system of rank and command; assignment, deployment, recruitment and retention. * WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE MILITARY'S RATIONALE? The military's rationale is unsupported by any evidence that gay servicemembers, by their very presence, will adversely affect good order and morale. Rather, the policy is premised on two unproven assumptions: 1) straight servicemembers will have such adverse reactions to openly gay servicemembers that the military mission will necessarily be compromised, and 2) there is no way to reduce these adverse reactions through strong military leadership so that adverse effects do not occur. These assumptions are exactly the ones that were used to argue against integrating African-Americans into the military. Bottom line -- these assumptions are wrong. First, many straight servicemembers currently know and work with comrades who are gay and have no difficulty with that fact. Second, consistent with our experience with race integration, strong military leadership against discrimination and harassment does mitigate adverse responses from others. The Defense Department's own internal studies, which on at least three occasions have found gay people to be suitable for military service, support this assessment. The fact that prejudice exists among some people has never been a valid reason to cater to that prejudice and reaffirm it. Rather, it is the responsibility of the government to take active steps to counter such prejudice. * WHAT WOULD BE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF LIFTING THE BAN? Ending the ban would increase, not decrease, military effectiveness. Readiness is increased when each servicemember is free to perform at his or her most effective level, unburdened by fear of disclosure of sexual orientation that will result in discharge. Existing military policies adequately address con- cerns such as discipline, good order and the system of command. These measures include strict sanctions against fraternization between the ranks, sexual harassment, abuse of authority and other conduct that could undermine unit readiness. Ending the ban would also save millions of dollars. A 1992 GAO study found that it cost $493,195,968 just to replace gay military personnel discharged from 1980-1990. * WHAT IS THE MILITARY'S POLICY UNDER THE "COMPROMISE" VOTED ON BY THE SENATE? Under the compromise provision, the military's policy is essentially the same as before. The only two changes are: 1) applicants are no longer asked if they are gay, and 2) service- members who say they are gay continue to be processed through the discharge system, but may ultimately have that discharge suspend- ed and be placed in "standby reserve." Servicemembers who acknowledge they have engaged in gay conduct are still subject to full discharge. While the existing military policy is thus effectively the same for the next few months, President Clinton's commitment to changing this policy within the coming months, and his belief that this policy is unconstitutional, has not changed. * WHY SHOULD CONGRESS SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT'S PLEDGE TO OVERTURN THE BAN? The ban against gay people in the military runs counter to the basic principles of fairness and justice on which our Nation stands. The way to deal with fears and stereotypes is to send a message that such prejudice will not be tolerated, rather than affirm the prejudice through a discriminatory policy that is unnecessary for a strong and effective military force. Gay people should not have to fight their country in order to defend their country.