The Department of Defense policy prohibiting gay people from
military service currently is the subject of increasing national
debate.  President Clinton has directed the Department of Defense
(DOD) to present him with a draft executive order rescinding or
modifying the ban by July 15, 1993.  Congress will hold hearings
on the military's ban during this time.

     Current military policy bars gay men, lesbians and bisexuals
from serving in the armed forces.  Under this policy, commanders
are required to discharge administratively individuals who state
they are gay, indicate that they intend to engage in "homosexual
conduct" or attempt to marry someone of the same sex.  The
current directive, unlike some previous versions, does not allow
commanders to make exceptions to policy.     

     Proponents of the policy argue that the presence of openly
gay people would prove sufficiently disruptive to justify contin-
uing the ban.  They cite the need to maintain good order and
morale within the working and living conditions imposed by
military service.  Proponents assert that straight servicemembers
will [have such negative reactions to openly gay servicemembers]
or [will not work or live with openly gay counterparts or take
orders from gay leaders...] that discipline and unit cohesion
will necessarily be compromised if the ban is lifted, thus
undermining readiness.  Recently, proponents have cited potential
sexual harassment of straight men by gay men and fear of the
spread of AIDS as additional reasons to prohibit gay men, lesbi-
ans and bisexuals in the armed forces.    
     
     Advocates for removing the ban view it as discriminatory and
unnecessary to maintain a strong national defense.  They note
that even military leaders now acknowledge that the ban is not
based on individual merit and that many gay people have served
with honor.  Advocates further cite a lack of any evidence that
openly gay servicemembers will adversely affect good order and
morale.  Instead, contend advocates, the rationale for the ban
contradicts the conclusion of internal DOD reports that gay
people are suitable for military service, as well as the actual
experience of those gay servicemembers who have been permitted to
serve openly or with the tacit knowledge of their unit.  Advo-
cates maintain that, when enforced, existing policies targeting
misconduct, such as prohibitions on fraternization and sexual
harassment, adequately address proponents' concerns, while
education and strong leadership against discrimination should be
brought to bear to mitigate adverse responses from straight
servicemembers.  Pointing out that the military denies entrance
to HIV+ applicants and that current screening and testing poli-
cies will not be changed by allowing gay people to serve openly,
advocates argue that the AIDS rationale is irrelevant to the
issue at hand.  Finally, advocates maintain that readiness will
be enhanced, not decreased, by stopping disruptive investigations
of suspected gay people, rather than discharging thousands of
trained personnel each year at a cost to taxpayers of millions of
dollars.