TALKING POINTS: UNIT COHESION * Unit Cohesion is a result of shared values based on mission accomplishment, not personal characteristics. Strong leadership, hard training and shared sacrifice are characteristics shared by members of all good units, regardless of their sexual orientations. * Thousands of gay men and lesbians currently serve in our military without incident. This will not change radically when gays are allowed to serve openly. * The notion that straight servicemembers will be so disturbed by the presence of openly gay colleagues that they will be unable to perform is insulting to military professionals who are trained to meld together a diversity of individuals. * Openly gay soldiers serve alongside straight soldiers in the Armed Forces of all but two of our NATO allies, without incident. [The two are Great Britain and Turkey] * Openly gay police officers, firefighters and paramedics protect and serve the public along- side non-gay co-workers in cities all across America, without incident. * Despite ugly stereotypes to the contrary, gay men and lesbians comport themselves just like everyone else in terms of sexual behavior and conduct. * By warning that soldiers will refuse to obey gay officers or will physically abuse gay colleagues, the opponents of change suggest that our military leaders cannot control our troops. There is no evidence that our leaders are incapable in this regard. * Crucial to our nation's world-renowned peaceful transfers of power is our military's unparalleled ability to salute smartly and carry out orders from civilian authority. To question the military's ability to do this is to questid Forces' entire system of rank and command. * To assert that our hardworking military professionals -- among the most dedicd courageous in the world -- will be unable to perform because some of their colleagues are openly gay is demeaning. Our fighting men and women deserve more respect. LEGAL CASES: TALKING POINTS * The most recent court to rule on the military ban, Meinhold v. Department of Defense, struck it down because the military was unable to come up with any factual justification for the policy. The court noted that even the military's own studies of its policy -- the 1957 Crittendon Report, and the 1988 and 1989 PERSEREC Reports -- found there was no factual basis for the policy of excluding gay men, lesbians and bisexuals. * Past cases which have upheld the ban have simply accepted the military's argument that the policy is justified because some straight servicemembers are uncomfortable with lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, such that good order and morale will be undermined. But the United States Supreme Court has said that the government cannot constitutionally cater to hate and base its policies on prejudice. * Courts which have upheld the ban have merely accepted the military's assertions that ending the ban would harm military effectiveness, without demanding an explanation or evidence of how lesbians, gay men and bisexuals might impair effectiveness. More recent courts have asked for such evidence but the military has been unable to provide any to date. * By contrast, the Ninth Circuit in Pruitt v. Cheney demanded the military present evidence showing there was a rational basis for their policy. The Solicitor General asked the Supreme Court to review and reverse the Pruitt decision, but the Supreme Court denied the request, allowing the case to stand. The case has now been sent back to the District Court for further action. TALKING POINTS 1. The military's policy which excludes lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals from serving in the military is simple dis- crimination. There is no evidence that gay people are not good soldiers. In fact, the military AGREES that gay people are currently serving in the military with valor and dis- tinction--and have done so for years. But the military wants these good soldiers ONLY if they keep their sexual orientation a deep and dark secret. This is not about merit; this is SIMPLE DISCRIMINATION. 2. There is no evidence that allowing openly gay people in the military will reduce the effectiveness of the military. In fact, stopping disruptive "witchhunts" of suspected gay people, allowing perhaps 10% of our military to finally serve openly and productively without constant fear of disclosure, and retaining, rather than discharging, thou- sands of talented servicepeople each year will ENHANCE, rather than decrease, the effectiveness of our fighting forces -- plus saving us millions of dollars. 3. The military spouts forth assertions, as if saying these assertions will make them true. The military says openly gay people will affect "unit cohesion," "discipline" or "rank and command." This is RANK NONSENSE. No. 1, it is simply NOT TRUE that so many straight people hate gay people so much that they can't live and work with them. Over the years, lots of straight people have served with people they have known are gay--without problems. No. 2, the military institution has amptly demonstrated its ability, through order and command, to tell any straight person who is uncom- fortable with gay people to keep personal prejudices in check and to work with people based on merit. 4. Allowing openly gay people into the military will not increase the risk of AIDS in the military. The military already has a stringent HIV-screening policy for applicants and denies entrance to those who are HIV-positive. The military also has a developed AIDS policy for servicemembers. These policies will not changed by allowing gay people currently in the military to be open about being gay. The AIDS issue is a complete red herring. 5. Lifting the military ban is not a grand social experi- ment. It is a simple application of our Nation's commitment to anti-discrimination and fairness. Racially integrating the military was not a grand social experiment in the 1950's -- it was simply the right thing to do. Lifting the gay military ban now is the RIGHT THING TO DO.