CONSOLIDATED FOOTNOTE FILE FOR DADT CHAPTER 4

Chapter 4:  Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: 1993

To assist researchers interested in the details of various Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue litigations, the following sources are given. In many cases, it is possible to study the details described in the plaintiff's (and government's or judge's) own words.

Charles Andrew Holmes: Own site Stanford site for this plaintiff

V. Keith Meinhold: Own site Stanford site for this plaintiff

Richard Dirk Selland: Stanford site for this plaintiff (see especially the Board of Inquiry's report for a detailed example of how the military interprets DADT and the lengths to which it will go)

Joseph Steffan: Stanford site for this plaintiff  (see also note 1 below).

Paul G. Thomasson: Own site Steve May Own site

Tracy W. Thorne: Stanford site for this plaintiff

The Stanford legal papers contain pdf files requiring adobe acrobat reader. The reader alone may be downloaded free of charge.

Several former servicemembers (and plaintiffs) have their own personally authored links from Servicemembers' Legal Defense Network. Look for the link on the left side of the SLDN home page.  There also some valuable links at “Dave’s” site at http://www.gaymilitay.org/policy.htm.

The footnotes for DADT Chapter 4 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell: 1993" now follow in page-number sequence.  (In the iUniverse printing, they start with number 163 as Endnotes; “++ 162”).  For ease of reference and searching on the Internet, some material from the Chapter 4 text itself may have been restated here.

1 Joseph Steffan, Honor Bound: A Gay American Fights for the Right to Serve his Country (New York: Villard, 1992). The link for Steffan’s case in 1989 at Stanford law school is this.

1a  Over the years, there have been a number of gay service academy members discharged. But some have graduated. See the SAGALA site. Shilts, in Conduct Unbecoming, recounts several other tales. The most chilling may be the account of  Dan Stratford, forced to resign from the U.S. Air Force Academy two weeks before graduating in 1979 because of his homosexual “associations,” uncovered by a roommate who found a letter from a homosexual in his room. Unlike Stratford, who refused to talk (when the Air Force tried to prod him into “naming names”) and threatened to sue, got his diploma but no commission. Yet, the behavior of the Air Force seemed to suggest that, given that homosexuals were such moral pariahs in the military, normal due process and respect for evidence—as if there were a “gay” exception to the Bill of Rights. (P. 325, Fawcett Columbine paperback printing).

1b  A general comment based on previous chapters of my book. For Chapter 1: I suppose that when I told William and Mary that I was a “latent” homosexual in 1961, the use of the word “latent” might have “rebutted the presumption” of homosexual conduct or a propensity for such conduct, but I am not aware that this has ever been tested in court (rebuttable presumption is discussed later in this chapter). My own in-service conduct (Chapter 2) probably fell within the legal parameters of avoiding “homosexual conduct” as defined in the DADT policy. Ironically, perhaps, I would earn a Good Conduct Medal at discharge. If someone “told” at a religious presentation (in front of a church body that accepts homosexuality), would this be excepted under the First Amendment freedom of religion? I am not aware that this has ever been tested.  But then, what if the “telling” were part of a documentary film?  Showing it in a religious setting might not violate DADT, but in a commercial theater or film festival would—and this potentially can cause an indirect but serious First Amendment issue for civilian filmmakers, journalists and writers. For example, a reservist could out himself at a gay community forum, a blogger who attended the forum could mention him on the web, and Google would pick him up if the military ever went fishing. Sometimes it does.

2 Dean Hannotte (editor), We Knew Paul (New York: 9th Street Center, 1990).

3 Urvashi Vaid, Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay and Lesbian Liberation (New York: Anchor, 1995), pp 155-167 provides a detailed history.

3a Ch 4, P 141, fn 3. But numerous cases did help set the stage for legal arguments that would follow. Sgt. Ben-Shalom, tossed out of the national guard for openly declaring her lesbianism, would invoke the free speech and "rational basis" arguments of years later;  Judge Kennedy, on an appeals court, would invoke the "fears of heterosexual soldiers" argument to defer to the military as early as the late 70's (Shilts, op. cit, p. 367), but her reinstatement in 1976 had been one of the earliest judicial successes against the ban. Hathaway would make an unsuccessful attempt to challenge the UCMJ sodomy law. Perry Watkins would serve, after temporary reinstatement, as the military's only publicly known drag queen. Some historians claim much more was already going on by the time of the Gulf War with the ban than my account here would suggest.

4 Hans Johnson, "The 'Pink' Nazis," The Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review, Summer 1995, Vol II, No. 3, p. 1.

5 M. Sagan, "A Journey into the Heart of Whiteness," Gentlemen's Quarterly, Mar. 1996, pp. 246-257.

6 Randy Shilts, "Thoughtcrimes," in Conduct Unbecoming, op. cit., pp. 375-382.

Also, Frank Rector, The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals (New York: Stein and Day, 1981).

Lutz van Dijk, Damned Strong Love (New York: Henry Holt, 1995). Translation from German by Elizabeth Crawford.

7 Bill Boushka, "A Question of Honor," review of Joe Steffan's Honor Bound, The Quill and Q-Liberty (Washington: Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty, October, 1994).

7a  Another important precedent was Robert Bork, Dronenberg v. Zech (1984), DC Circuit, which upheld the “old ban” on the grounds of sodomy laws. William N. Eskrdige, Dishonorable Passions: Sodomy Laws in America, 1861-2003. New York: Viking, 2003. p. 253.  Like Shilts, Eskridge also covers the Navy “Newport” witch hunt in the book, on p. 60.    

8 Frank Browning, "The Management of Desire," Mother Jones, March 1993. This essay featured a shower-locker-room shot of naked, baby-bodied Plebes, shoved together all very much enjoying their boyish cohesion.

9 See Philip Brett's essay, "The More Vicious the Society, the More Vicious the Individual: Peter Grimes and its Message," to liner notes to Peter Grimes, London (Polygram) CD 414577. Curiously, Steffan doesn't mention Billy Budd.

10 Steffan, op. cit., p. 54.

11 Virginia Polytechnic Institute's 1996 ROTC brochure (Corps of Cadets) reassuringly describes a gradual decrease in military regimentation during a cadet's four undergraduate years.

12 Shilts, op. cit., pp 512-513.

13 Read Mixner's account of his own family's hostility; A Stranger Among Friends, op. cit., p. 129.

14 Marc Wolinsky and Kevin Sherrill, editors, Gays and the Military: Joseph Steffan versus the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), gives all the major affidavits and district court opinion.

15 Clinton had applied for a National Guard position and then changed his mind and gotten a graduate student deferment. He was involved in a minor protest at Oxford University, England while on a scholarship. He also visited Moscow once. Mixner downplays all of this, and portrays Bill Clinton as patriotic but troubled both over his opposition to the War and to his own deferment from service. David Mixner, Stranger Among Friends, (New York: Bantam, 1996), pp. 90-91, 110-112, 253-254.  

Ch 4 P 145, pr. 2: The Navy one time approached Allen Schindler's mother and actually confused her with the mother of Schindler's killer! There are many examples of vindictive attitudes towards gays by some military personnel. In 1980, off-duty Marines attacked civilian patrons of a gay bar in Washington, D.C. In 1997 there was actually a tear gas attack apparently from five off-duty marines.

15a  In June 2000, SLDN wrote a letter to the Director of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS, or NIS) requesting that it comply with DADTDP (defined later in this Chapter 4) and stop visiting gay bars in the Washington, DC area (JR’s, Badlands, and Velvet Nation) trying to entrap military members into “illegal” conduct.  In some cases, the NCIS has reported names of civilians to police, possibly for suspected drug activity or for illegal solicitation; as far as I know, the D.C. Police Department has not acted upon these reports.  Particularly galling was the testimony at an April 28, 2000 Article 32 hearing by an NCIS Special Agent John P. O’Connor.   Since the NIS often uses civilians as investigators, one really wonders about the supposed commitment of the Navy to non-discrimination in the civilian workforce (with respect to sexual orientation), so criticized in the mid 1990s by The Washington Times. 

In a story by Robert Suro, in The Washington Post, June 17, 2000, “Navy Sends Agents into Gay Bars,  the NCIS claimed in a military court proceeding that it was looking only for illegal drug activity, although it was clear that most of the bars they had targeted catered to gay patrons.     

16 The policy (and UCMJ) also apply to the Coast Guard (officially part of the Treasury Department), and also to the one other uniformed service, the Public Health Service. There have actually been prosecutions for sodomy against PHS doctors.

16a Presumably the same policy (and now DADT) applies to military members who list for specific purposes, such as the Marine Band or other ceremonial organizations.

17 The categories are Honorable, General, Other than Honorable, and Bad Conduct A General Discharge (even when under "Honorable conditions") is often considered stigmatizing by employers. A Bad Conduct requires Courts-Martial and can result in prison after discharge. (There used to be a "Dishonorable Discharge.")

17a However, even Honorable Discharges may be “tainted” by SPN (Separation Program Number), SPD (Separation Program Designator), and RE codes on the servicemember’s DD-214 papers, indicating the “Character of Service.”  The military claims that it implemented these (with increasing use after “ending” the draft in 1974) to prevent undesirable re-enlistments or reserve memberships, however civilian employers sometimes review them.  There is a complete discussion by Phil Coleman (“The Vanishing Honorable Discharge”)  at http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/policy.htm and http://members.aol.com/veterans/warlib61.htm.

18 Sexual contact (that is, heterosexual) between officer and enlisted, even in different services, has always been prohibited. Within a command, it is sometimes acceptable between members of the same or nearly the same rank. The Army is more lenient (among heterosexuals) on this issue than are the other services.

19 Shilts, op. cit., p. 565.

20 Shilts, op. cit., pp. 655-662, 696-708, (the Hartwig incident). Government likes to do this. Vanity Fair (article "American Nightmare: The Ballad of Richard Jewell" by Marie Brenner, Feb. 1997 reports that the FBI made up a theory that Jewell was an enraged homosexual designing to attract attention with the Olympic Park bombing; all of these charges Jewell and his attorney emphatically deny. Jewell was cleared.

Marie Brenner had an interesting story in Vanity Fair in 1997 about this:

http://www.mariebrenner.com/articles/nightmare/jewell4.html     ; see also http://www.businessweek.net/bwdaily/dnflash/january/new0131a.htm

20a Ch 4 P 147, fn 20: Later the FBI would turn about face and admit that the same person who planted the Olympic Park bomb might have bombed a lesbian bar in Atlanta.

20b In April 2005 the real perpetrator, Eric Rudolph, of the bombings (which included not only the Olympics but also the lesbian club, as noted, and two abortion clinics) was apprehended, plead guilty and will be sentenced to four consecutive “life without parole” terms. Rudolph is what journalists (and this gets into my second, post-9/11 DADT book) calls “the other kind of terrorist” (compared Osama bin Laden) – the extreme right wing (sometimes “Christian” (??)) fanatic who acts essentially alone with relatively little organizational support even in a decentralized structure – like Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber or perhaps the DC area snipers in 2002.

21 Charles Robb, "A Question of Simple Honesty," Richmond News Leader-Times Dispatch, June 14, 1993.

22 One female soldier, desiring discharge before deployment, was asked to produce a "marriage" certificate proving she was married to another woman! Steffan, op. cit., p. 222.

23 This would include posting personals in gay newspapers or even private computer bulletin boards. In San Diego, a marine was court-martialed in 1993 for posing in gay porno videos; military police actually raided a civilian home to gather evidence.

In January 2001, there were reports of an investigation at a Marine base at 29 Palms Calif., that some Marines would be investigated for posing (“off-duty” in civilian establishments) for a pornographic web site, apparently an explicit UCMJ violation. The posings may have been anonymous but that makes no difference legally, and there are reports that military insignia were included in the pictures. The risk could be that the military, if there is a provable violation of law, might be able to subpoena records or evidence from a civilian business, so far an infrequent occurrence as a whole. Repeated problems could tempt conservative members in Congress to want to give the military more authority to inspect civilian premises.  See also note 15a above.  

24 There were demonstrations against resumption of registration.

25 Queerlaw (listserver) reports that background investigations, at least until recently (about 1990), attempted to ferret out any hint of homosexuality for almost all federal clearances, although no investigator ever questioned any of my acquaintances about this back in the 60's and 70's. Queerlaw also reports that an isolated spy case in Britain (Burgess and MacLean) had been responsible for the "blackmail" excuse. (See note 140).

25a Ch. 4 P148, fn 25: When I applied for a Top Secret clearance in a civilian job with the Navy Dept. in 1971, I told the truth about the William and Mary episode and was asked if anyone had ever tried to blackmail me even though at that time I had never engaged in any overt homosexual acts. When I was moving back to the D.C. area from Texas in 1988 (and after having trouble job-hunting in Texas where I, as a never-married male, was perceived as an "AIDS" risk), I was about to obtain an offer from a company that required a State Department security clearance, but decided not to take "the chance." Yet, recruiters in 1988, even in Texas, were telling me that sexual orientation was not supposed to be an issue.

25b James Adams (The Next World War: Computers Are the Weapons and the Front Line Is Everywhere. Simon & Schuster, 1998) points out that the British government was embarrassed by several Soviet spies "who were also homosexuals"; nevertheless the British government openly advertised in the 1990's (under John Major) that "open" homosexuals were welcome to apply for Security Service (0-0-7??) jobs. Oh, what does it mean to be a man, James Bond (Ian Flemming)? Anyway, there have been rare problems with gays as security risks, but it would surprise both Tall Gunner Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover (and Clyde Tolson) how infrequent this is. And, certainly the title of Adams's book reminds us that brains will become ever more important in the future military (we fumbled on that with deferments during the Cold War, and we fumble on that with the military ban when we kick out guys like Steffan and Thomasson, among others.)

26 Daniel Baker, Sean Strub, and Bill Henning, Cracking the Corporate Closet (New York, Harper Business, 1995), pp 30-36. It is an article of common sense, that in certain industries employers who must sell to the Pentagon or to members of the military will (regardless of legal non-discrimination civilian employment requirements) prefer ex-military personnel (at least for sales or some executive positions) to help "get business," an artifact that would work against females as well as against gays.  

27 ACLU, The Rights of Lesbians and Gay Men (Carbondale, Southern Illinois University, 1992), p. 30.

Frank Buttino, A Special Agent: Gay and Inside the FBI (New York: William Morrow, 1993).

27a  Bob Von Sternberg, “No simple solution in fire chief case” Minneapolis Star Tribune, Dec 2, 2006,   http://www.startribune.com/462/story/850057.html  relates the story of openly lesbian Minneapolis fire department chief Bonnie Bleskachek, who has generated at least four lawsuits because of allegedly favoristic personnel practices, bringing back old stereotypes of gays from McCarthy days. Remember also that in the mid 1970s gay firemen was a controversial topic in New York City (Daily News or Post editorials), with arguments made about the intimacy of firehouses (ironically, GAA was in the "Firehouse" at 99 Wooster St.)

28 Harvey Friedman, "An Open Letter to President Clinton," The Washington Blade, April 23, 1993.

29 James Holobaugh, Torn Allegiances (Boston: Alyson, 1993). Most ROTC students, however, do not have full tuition scholarships and sometimes have only reserve obligations upon graduation.

30 Amy Waldman, "GI's: Not Your Average Joes," Washington Monthly, Nov., 1996, pp. 26-33.

31 Tom Swann, Posting on America OnLine, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," July 1996.

31a Ch. 4 P. 149, fn 31: Tom Swann provides his own account in "Serving his Country," The Bulletin (LA Democratic Party, Aug., 1997).

31b Tom Swann had a book published in 2003: Swann, Thomas A. The Tom Swann Story: For a Greater Good. New York: Pygmalion, 2003. ISBN 1888292156  For more see http://www.lambdarising.com/ and search for “Tom Swann”. Swann states: “I am the last federal employee to have his access to classified information challenged by the government based on being a homosexual. Our ACLU case resulted in the Secretary of the Department of the Navy adding sexual orientation protection for all civilian employees, over 250,000 workers.” I have an early draft (dating back to 1996) of material from this book.

32 Randy Shilts, Conduct Unbecoming, op. cit., 1993/94), p. 287 and Robert Le Blanc, working papers supplied to me (1996).

32a  Robert Le Blanc is working on a book project that he describes here. You can download a “rough draft” of his book free from his website, “A Marine’s Diary”.

33 Tom Swann, personal notes.

34 Robert Graham, Military Secret (Dallas: Monument, 1993). This book is practically a diary of his service during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Interesting is his mention of the chess games, and the discomfort caused by heavy cigarette smoking of other sailors in a confined environment. In fact, the military and Veterans Administration spend much more on smoking-related illness than on AIDS. 32% of the military population smokes cigarettes, compared to 22% if civilians (NBC "Dateline," June 18, 1997).

35 Some observers commented that the order and cleanliness of military life should appeal to gay men. This is hardly true of me; I am more like a Jabba the Hutt!

36 Some commentators note that interracial marriages are relatively more common among military people than the general public. White servicemembers are more likely to report to African-American superiors than are their civilian counterparts. Military servicemembers will call each other by names that would sound offensive in civilian society but may not be so interpreted in a cohesive unit. There have been scattered reports of racial discrimination in officer promotion, especially in Marines Corps OCS. In 1999, the Pentagon released a study which admitted that non-white soldiers are not as confident of the military's progress in completely eliminating "institutionalized" racial discrimination as the Pentagon had thought.

36a.  During the Spring of 1993, Marine Corps Commandant Carl Mundy created a stir by suggesting that married men not be allowed to enlist in the Marine Corps, because the demands from home are so great.. Commentators laughed, “They don’t want gays, and now they don’t want straights.” Oh, marriage was indispensable in a Marine’s life, but only after finishing his training and some service. The military has, of course, been very supportive of servicemembers with recognition for spouses who have children when the servicemembers are deployed. I can remember during Basic that married enlistees and draftees had dependent allotments deducted from their paychecks.

After the 2003 War with Iraq, some conservatives suggested that female soldiers who were also mothers (even single mothers) not be deployed to combat areas. Much has been written over the years about the financial strain on military families during deployments, as well as pregnancies that occur on bases or during deployments from heterosexual encounters.

37 Charles Moskos, "The Military Ban on Homosexuals," The World and I, Jan. 1993, p. 52.

37a Ch 4, P 151, fn 37 : But let's turn Moskos around. A gay soldier might feel "offended" by being expected to show interest in barracks heterosexual banter and not being allowed to explain his disinterest. Yes, this seems unfair.

37b After speaking at the University of Minnesota (libertarian club), I was asked by one technology student why, when one considers civilian health spas where gays and straights can view each other in the showers, and when one also considers that military service creates the presumption of loss of privacy, "sexual privacy" (beyond "racial" privacy in 1948) should be a legitimate expectation in military service. (Indeed, the miltiary becomes more co-ed, even, except for the Marine Corps, in Basic.) I think that the military's answer would involve, not just "unit cohesion," but the notion that military units live and even hot-bunk together for long periods of time and sometimes demand the ultimate sacrifice.

Journalists Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck, in American Terrorist (2001, Regan) when writing about the early Army career of Timothy McVeigh (#1, Oklahoma City) point out that the Army has a COHORT (Cohesion, Operational Readiness, and Training) for new soldiers that sometimes keeps soldiers together in small units for three years.  It also sometimes encourages “buddy” enlistments. 

An important subtlety of the sexual privacy issue is that when young men live together in close quarters, they often feel reassured if they see less competitive males “succeed” in heterosexual contests, in their own way, even with less “desirable” women. This protects them from feeling that they have to compete with men who are “better” than them for women.

37c A retired Army infantry colonel who helped write the DADT administrative rules points out (on CBS "60 Minutes," Dec 12, 1999, in explaining "unit cohesion") that during cold-weather training exercises, men even have to share sleeping bags and ponchos (body-to-body). Such extreme intimacy would be rare (and one wonders if, in combat, the sexes could be separated in such emergencies); in training exercises, soldiers should not be required to share such extreme bodily contact with other specific individuals to which they may have an objection. This should not happen often.

37d Paul Varnell, “Slowly, very slowly, the pressure is building to overturn the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy,” Chicago Free Press, Nov. 22, 2000, reports that Charles Moskos now predicts that political pressure will end the policy in a number of years. Varnell argues that even though women are traditionally more concerned about bodily modesty than men, over 50% of  military women support allowing gays and lesbians to server openly, a counter to the “barracks privacy” argument. 

37e On April 14, 2001, I experienced an unpleasant encounter in the locker room at Balley’s Holiday spa in Little Canada, Mn (north of St. Paul), when another patron objected to my SLDN T-shirt that read “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Think So.”  (The back of the shirt readsm “Say Nothing, Sign Nothing, Get Legal Gelp.”)  He first asked if I was “all right” and then speculated about my intentions when I went into the showers.  Apparently he was unable to distinguish between a political statement and what he naively interpreted as a blanket invitation for sexual encounters.  In twenty years of Balleys/Presidents’ membership there has been only one other “proposition,” that one in Dallas back in the 1980s. As if this weren’t enough, in a few minutes I would overhear a complaint in the whirlpool about the fact that California had become the first state in which whites were officially in a minority.  

37f.  The idea that privacy can be invaded or exposure to unwanted influences may occur clearly can happen in some civilian jobs: fire departments, other law enforcement, medicine, teaching—issues with these fields are discussed elsewhere on the site. (In medicine, some patients prefer examination by professionals of the same gender who are visibly heterosexual, but this has not been a “big” problem – yet medicine is a bit like the military, they say.) The need to hire a professional security force for airports raises an issue: if “pat down” screening of passengers is to be done, there are potential privacy issues and at least the possibility that some passengers will maintain that they be screened only by same-gendered persons known not to be homosexual (this brings back the “asking” possibility and the house of cards above it.) 

37g  In June 2002 SLDN reported that the Air Force Reserves had still been using an “old” (1987) form at enlistment that asked both sexual orientation and whether the recruit had or intended to commit homosexual acts. Here is the direct URL: http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html?record=546  This URL provides for download of the actual form in PDF format (need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view).

38 Women usually cannot serve in combat units. However, in some combat roles, such as sniping, women may perform better than men.

38a Pg 152, pr. 2. SLDN, especially in Conduct Unbecoming: The Fifth Annual Report on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, esp. pp 29, 46 (1999; see http://www.sldn.org/) document numerous incidents where military investigators have questioned civilian friends and family members. Even "inadvertent statements" (by acquaintances) are taken as evidence of "homosexual conduct." Questioning of civilians can particularly be a problem in recoupment cases (see SLDN Survival Guide [1997], p. 50, discussion of an Air Force internal directive). In one case, an investigator doing a BI for a civilian had the nerve to ask an Air Force member if he (the servicemember) was gay (because of association)! All of this when lax security (both military and civilian) is being heavily reported by the media on critical systems.

Investigations of servicemembers’ off-base private homes or apartments (or personally owned computers or any other properties) are rather infrequent but have happened, particularly when civilian police have turned over cases or evidence to military police (as was the case when a gay officer’s home in Texas was destroyed by arson). In at least one case, military investigators tried to conduct an illegal search of a civilian pornography business, and in another the Air Force unsuccessfully sought the membership roster of a Colorado Metropolitan Community Church.  Military investigations of other civilian business records for evidence of homosexual conduct by members has not been noted in any reports that I have seen. Military members usually (and civilian members always) may refuse such searches without a warrant (and a it would be very unusual for the military to have the legal right to inspect a civilian’s premise—only when there is probable cause for a criminal, not just administrative, investigation and indeed military involvement with civilian businesses and residences could undermine its case in court defending DADT). However, in administrative discharge proceedings, 4th and 5th Amendment protections may not be as strong as in criminal proceedings (and I think that this can be challenges, so the say nothing, sign nothing rule should always be followed).  In a few cases the military has tried to conduct polygraph tests to investigate homosexual conduct, and in a few cases the “defense” has actually wanted to have them conducted independently by civilian examiners, but the use of polygraphs in administrative proceedings belongs to legal limbo. 

Being seen in “gay bars” or at gay parades (or even marching in them) in civilian clothes when “off duty” is not supposed to trigger investigations (the 1994 regs actually say, “Going to a gay bar is not a crime”!), although in some parts of the country (especially in the South) commanders still tend to mark gay bars off-limits, which makes long drives to bars in cities like Miami, Atlanta and Charlotte common.  (But see note 15a above, and 115 below.)    

Statements to military physicians or psychiatrists and to chaplains have been used against servicemembers and have not been treated as confidential (although Joseph Steffan, in Honor Bound, indicates that his discussions with Academy chaplains were kept confidential). There is hope that this may be changed administratively in the future. Complaints by females (even heterosexual female soldiers) about sexual harassment and by male soldiers of anti-gay harassment, even through the chain of command of to the IG, have sometimes resulted in improper investigations.

Military commanders have varying response to admissions of homosexuality when they are believed to be intended to seek honorable discharges. The so-called “Corporal Klinger” provision in the 1993 Act and 1994 policy allows the military to retain such persons when it believes that the statements are made “to avoid military service,” and of course the Pentagon “complains” that this phenomenon account for much of the increase in “gay discharges” (at least in the earliest months of enlistments) since 1993.  The military has often refused to discharge “admitted gays” when it needed them during deployments, until after they return stateside, as Steffan (op. cit.) reports in discussing the Persian Gulf War, and as I know from my own experience in the military during the Vietnam era, when a background awareness of a soldier’s homosexuality as often tolerated as long as misconduct did not become a problem.

39 Universities which offer ROTC generally do not mention the ban (or past recoupment problems) in their own catalogues.

According to the Department of Education's (DOE') Digest of Educational Statistics (1996), about 1.17 million students graduated from U.S. colleges with baccalaureate degrees in 1994. There were that year about 14.3 million students in college, and about 8.8 million in 4 year colleges. According to the 1997 World Book Encyclopedia, there were about 100,000 students (college and high school) enrolled in ROTC programs around 1990. In addition to ROTC, there are about 14,000 students in 4 service academies. The total number of colleges offering ROTC for Army, Navy, and Air Force respectively are 300, 65, and 150, with over double that for high schools and prep schools. High school ROTC exercises are rather common in some of our shopping malls! The military services have about 260,000 active commissioned officers, and, in 1993, enlisted about 406000 people. There are about active 25000 officers with rank O-1 (recently commissioned). There are about 1.5 million servicemembers on active duty, 1.8 million in the Reserves (1.56 million are Individual Ready Reserves). Regular and reserve commissions are offered to ROTC graduates largely on "merit" (and nearly always to academy graduates). When all these numbers are correlated, it appears that about 2% of 4-year college students are enrolled in ROTC programs; I couldn't find a number on how many are on partial or full military scholarships. Note that ROTC students major in conventional subjects (there are very few degrees in military science as such, according to DOE).

A gay young adult with a middle or upper class background might say, what's the big deal? This sounds insignificant as an opportunity. Many people have the same attitude about military sexual harassment -- put men and women together, and the inevitable happens; no big moral issue? For people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds (and especially to racial minorities), the military is still a major source of opportunity .

39a Ch 4, P 152. fn 39.:See Nancy Livingston, "Law School Pressured on Military," The St. Paul Pioneer Press Oct. 3, 1997, p. 1, for a story about William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Mn., which has long denied campus access to military recruiters for law students because of military anti-gay policies (which violate the college's own non-discrimination policies). The college faces pressure from the Department of Education (because of a legislative trick, the Solomon Amendment in the 1996 omnibus appropriations bill, which links DOE to DOD contracts) for loss of funds if it does not allow military recruiters. This may hurt lower-income students on financial aid. The Pentagon effectively has the power to tell civilian agencies which citizens (at least based on apparent or declared sexual orientation) it may help! The "liberal" government pits one group (gays) against another (lower income people)! No wonder libertarianism is attractive to me! There is a similar situation in Conn., on hold until 1998 under a Conn. State Supreme Court order (which right now is keeping military recruiters off some campuses there). Note: In Nov. 1997, Mitchell college finally admitted military recruiters, and had another Minnesota law school, Hamline. In early 2000, William Mitchell again banned military recruiters; and some commentators claimed that for a university to bar recruiters from organizations (even government ones) with which it had a political dispute, to violate “free speech”!

The government has quietly offered "civilian" defense scholarships, such as for the CIA; possibly this is supposed to soften the exclusion of open gays from military ROTC and graduate programs, but it has to be kept as quiet as possible.

On August 28, 2002, Harvard University Law School regretfully announced that it would allow military recruiters on campus, or face the loss of $328 million in DOD grants. (Source: Boston Globe).

March 29, 2004 (source: SLDN). – The House of Representatives is expected to vote Tuesday on controversial legislation designed specifically to strengthen the Department of Defense’s ability to violate university non-discrimination policies and squash legal challenges to such actions.  The ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act of 2004 (H.R. 3966) was introduced on March 12th by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) in response to a law suit challenging the Solomon Amendment, a law granting military recruiters access to university students. 

The new legislation strengthens the so-called Solomon Amendment, an existing law which forces universities to violate non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation.  Under H.R. 3966, universities would be required to grant “equal access” to recruiters, giving the U.S. military the same recruiting advantages as employers that offer equal opportunities to lesbian and gay students.  While many schools already grant recruiters unfettered access, H.R. 3966 places into federal law policies which now exist as Department of Defense regulations.  Universities would be required to certify such access to the Secretary of Defense or risk losing all federal funding for their schools. 

From SLDN, May 13, 2004. – “The House and Senate Armed Services Committees yesterday added language to the FY2005 Defense Authorization Bill, guaranteeing a double-standard by which the military avoids compliance with universities’ non-discrimination policies protecting students on the basis of sexual orientation.  The proposed legislation strengthens the so-called Solomon Amendment, an existing law which forces universities to grant special exemption to the U.S. military for recruitment. The House of Representatives passed similar legislation (H.R. 3966) in March.

The legislation specifically requires colleges and universities to grant military recruiters access to campus in `a manner that is at least equal in quality and scope to the degree of access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other employer.” 

39b In October 1999, the Defense Appropriation Act 2000 (signed by the president) repealed part of the Solomon-Pombo Amendment. Section 8120 of new appropriation stipulates that SPA will apply to federal funds "available solely for student assistance or related administrative costs. . ." P.L. 106-79, Sec. 8120.

On October 27, 2000 Richard McKewen (212-998-6370) reported that Air Force recruiter Major Chuck Tripp canceled a planned visit to the NYU campus because of threatened student boycotts and protests. There had been protests when Capt. Ann Zgrodnick of the U.A. Army JAG Corps visited the campus in September; she was the first military recruiter on campus for about 20 years; when the Solomon Amendment was interpreted to apply to any school within which just one department denied admittance to military recruiters, the entire school could lose DOD funds. 

39c  On June 19, 2000 USA Today ran a story, “ROTC falls short for a fifth year,” by Andrea Stone. There is also a serious shortfall in OCS (Officer Candidate School).

39d  Servicemembes discharged before a certain minimum number of years active duty may be ineligble for Montgomery G.I. Bill Education benefits or recovery of what they have invested, even if discharged for “homosexual conduct.” [SLDN Survival Guide]

39e. Even in relatively recent times, servicemembers discharged for homosexuality have had subsequent civilian employment problems when they got downgraded (often, general) discharges (a common occurrence, despite the supposed honorable discharge provision of Claytor’s 1981 “Old Ban”). Shilts relates a chilling account of Air Force SAC pilot David Marier, discharged after millions had been spent training him after a witch-hunt at Wurthsmith AFB. Marier accepted a general discharge in lieu of prosecution, but it is far from clear that the Air Force could have proved fraternization. Nevertheless, Marier would then (this was 1985) be unable to get a job as an airline pilot and would wind up waiting on tables in his home St. Paul Minnesota, doing perhaps “a real job.”   (Shilts, Conduct Unbecoming, paperback, 497-8.)  Shilts goes into detail on many of the major stories (not covered in my DADT in detail) before the 1993 battle: Leonard Matlovich, Tom Dooley, Perry Watkins, Vernon (“Copy”) Berg, Miriam Ben-Shalom, Barbara Baum (who, according to her own account on ABC “20-20” was threatened by the Marine Corps with “38 years for being gay”)—all of these verify that the battle had been quietly percolating for years. As a complete history of the ban before the 1993 turn of events Shilts still provides the major source.   

39f  Mark Moeller, in “The Military Invades the Campus: Affirmative action plus national security equals and end to free speech on campus,” in Liberty, Sept. 2004, p. 19 talks about FAIR v. Rumsfeld, where a number of universities (as plaintiffs) argue “that the government’s coercive use of the purse-string infringes on private universities’ freedom to express principled opposition against gay and lesbian students,” as expressed in the Solomon amendment.  Moeller documents a judicial change, especially underlined by the Grutter affirmative action decision, that allows government to reign in on free speech for national security reasons. The military has supported affirmative action as essential to it’s ability to attract diverse officers to lead it’s often minority-centered ranks, and Grutter apparently implies that “national security requires the University of Michigan law school to use race as a selection criterion.”  See also http://www.doaskdotell.com/content/affirmac.htm

40 James E. Kennedy, About-Face: A Gay Officer's Account of How He Stopped Prosecuting Gays in the Army and Started Fighting for Their Rights (New York: Birch Lane, 1995).

40a Ch. 4 P153 fn 40. Kennedy quit as a JAG officer, partly because he did not want to engage in prosecutions he felt morally repugnant. Other gay attorneys, faced the dilemma of going to law school at government expense to learn to prosecute gay soldiers, have left the military and gone to law school at their own expense.

41 EDS would take over corporate data centers with facilities management contracts and then force the inherited employees to live up to its values. EDS has been right behind my tail more than once in my own career.

42 "Navy Sec. James Webb, reversing discriminatory policy, announces women civilian employees can participate in submarine trials," Washington Post, June 16, 1987, p. A10.

But in February 2001, there were two civilian employees at or near the helm of a submarine (the Greeneville) that collided with a fishing trawler (the Ehime Maru) near Hawaii when surfacing. Sixteen civilians were on board, including at least one married couple and one sportswriter. (In fact, it appears that this particular mission had been staged to “educate” civilians.) These were apparently “guests” although sometimes some larger ships do have civilian employees.  On February 10, 2001, a New York Times op-ed by Fred Hochberg reported that President Bush was actually reviewing executive orders concerning discrimination by sexual orientation in civilian government employment.  Maybe it doesn’t stop with the military.   

On March 1, 2000, USA Today offered an editorial, “Sub tragedy exposes wider civilian problems,” in which commander discretion in allowing civilians to participate in military exercises was criticized. Over 20000 civilians were guests on 400 different occasions on naval vessels in the 1990s. Civilians have slept over on submarines (I did not), and done parachute jumps (although most outdoors gay groups actually offer skydiving opportunities!)  Often family members were guests; sometimes they were high school students considering enlisting or entering service academies; sometimes they were business executives or officials who may be making decisions about military hardware. Generally, military commanders and personnel take seriously guests who sound credible involved in a particular issue affecting the military (such was my own case with my 1 hour+ day submarine visit discussing the gay ban in 1993). Similar situations occur in medicine with medical supplies sales people. However, an opposing view was offered by Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, with emphasis on the value of having citizens observe and concern themselves with the military (which I did!).

42a .  One female with twenty-seven years of enlisted service in the Air Force including elapsed time in the reserves told me that her civilian job required her to remain in the reserves, and therefore not to “tell.”    

43 Randy Shilts, Conduct Unbecoming, op. cit.

43a.  However, the Catholic church, under increasing pressure from (exaggerated) press coverage about pedophilia among priests, says it is now “asking” about sexuality, urges, and sexual orientation of new priests. The arguments for celibacy have been (1) scriptural, regarding the nature of Christ and the apostles, and (2) the spiritual notion that celibacy is a spiritual gift. The basic counter-argument is that celibate priests would not have real experience with fathering and raising families , as in the “real lives” of the parishioners that the counsel. But the disturbing suspicion is that men who cannot relate intimately to other adults (preferably in their own age range, whether same sex or not) will look to outlets first in fantasy and then to those who are immature or vulnerable. This sort of argument, modified to mean that men who do not function heterosexually with adult women are suspect, would tend to feed the determination of those who want to jeep the military gay ban.

44 The Quill, Oct., 1994, op. cit.

44 Moskos, Charles, "The Military Ban on Homosexuals," op. cit.

45 At least one retired Army officer told me, however, that he served his twenty years relatively openly and that had known consciously he was gay as a teenager.

46 Shilts, op. cit.

47 The cable-TV film version of diver Greg Louganis's Breaking the Surface (New York: Random House, 1995), film by USA Films (1997) contains a scene where Greg hints he is gay to another fellow diver in the showers, and gets a negative reaction!

47a Ch 4 P 156, pr. 3. The "indecency" of racial integration in the military, as everywhere else, was an obvious smokescreen for apartheid, to keep whites economically privileged. With sexual orientation, it's a lot more complicated.

48 A cartoon "Don't Ask Don't Tell Gets Started," The New Republic, July 1993. The straight man asks, "what's wrong with me?"

48a Ch 4, P 156, pr. 4: The difference between military racial prejudice (when Truman addressed the issue in 1948) and the purported discomfort about gays would seem to be that heterosexual soldiers might feel that gay sexual interest (or disinterest) is directed at them personally. Nunn, after all, had screamed, "they have no privacy."

Regarding Truman’s 1948 racial integration of the military, it is worthy to note that only 5% of black persons in uniform were deployed into combat areas during World War II. 

48b  Nunn’s argument about military privacy presumably could affect other areas. For example, should a publicly known homosexual be an airport security screener if he or she does pat down searches on random subjects?  If a publicly known homosexual is a gym teacher and has access to locker rooms and showers, does this violate the privacy of minor students?

49 Technically, merchant marine members must be eligible for military status (a bit like a posse) in time of war, so the military ban can be used against them; I have never heard that it actually has been.

49a (And sometimes civilian employees do share sleeping space -- some Silicon Valley start-up firms actually have bunks at work -- "barracks for programmers".)

49b In the June 9, 2000 USA Today, “They’re not in the Army now,” story by Dave Moniz, there is a discussion of the hiring of former military officers by civilian companies.  There are at least 35 headhunters that specialize in placing military officers, such as the Compass Group, headed by John Grisillo, in Charleston, S.C.  It should be clear that the military ban indirectly extends discrimination against gays in the civilian sector, especially among companies that work with the military or prefer former military officers (see discussion of EDS elsewhere).   

50 But see Anne Stockwell and J.V. Auley, "Tackling the NFL Closet," The Advocate, Dec. 24, 1996.

50a On December 8, 1999, ABC "20-20" aired a story about the twelve-year career of baseball player Billy Bean, who had played for the Tigers, Dodgers and Padres, batted with moderate power and performed as a flashy outfielder. He had married, but then come to terms himself with his homosexuality and lived three years with an Iranian immigrant. When his lover died from an unusual illness (pancreatitis), he could not even be there. He gave up baseball before finally "coming out" to parents and the public. His ex-teammates have been very supportive; but many have commented that the mood in male team sports is a lot like the military. At best, it's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and there are the usual fag jokes. Bean denies knowing other gay players (except for Glenn Burke).

On June 22, 2000, ABC “20-20 Downtown” ran a story about high school football player, Corey Johnson, in Massachusetts, coming out to his parents and then to his team after hearing “fag jokes.”  Again, if a high school football team can live with intimacy of known gay students, can the military deal with it in the barracks? (Remember the book, The Dave Kopay Story, about a Washington Redskins pro football player who came out after his career).  Does the military set the example?  

The civilians-in-the-locker-room situation occurs even in a suit by Richard Marsden against the University of Minnesota. Openly-gay Marsden was an athletes-academic coordinator and sometimes had to meet with students in locker rooms. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, June 27, 2000, p. B1).

On August 7, 2002 CNN “Tackback Live” ran an interview with former San Diego Padres player Billy Bean, who played “in the closet” for about ten years. He felt that “telling” would create a distraction for the team. Fathers feel uncomfortable taking sons to games and having to deal with the publicity over a gay player, when they associate homosexuality with “weakness,” but then that is all about busting the stereotype.  The locker room argument did not come up in this interview. 

50b Ch 4, P 157, pr. 3. The New York Times on Aug. 17, 1997 carried a story on civilian employee housing in our national parks system. It sounds pretty cramped.

50c Barney Frank has publicly opposed making a future ENDA apply to transgendered persons on the theory that even some civilian workplaces require employees to house together for short periods of time, and it would be impossible to define the circumstances of sex change precisely. (Note that Frank's comments could strengthen my condition that the Nunn "privacy" argument could apply to some civilian situations, such as those which led to my being thrown out of college in 1961). It does seem no one has seriously challenged the military on excluding transgendered persons. I do know of one case where a male sailor took a medical discharge after fifteen years of service before undergoing a sex-change. 

50d Ch 4, P 158, pr. 1 The "hazing" of Plebes at the Naval Academy seems slight compared to some of the rituals in the Marine Corps ("blood wings"), where golden eagle pins are driven into the pecs of initiates, causing excruciating pain and leaving scars. (NBC "Dateline," Jan. 31, 1997). At the Marine Corps barracks in Washington, they used to have a "hell night." The initiations remind one of ancient Sparta, where young men were taught to bear intense pain without flinching. The idea of pain, I had thought growing up, was degrading.

50e  Katherine Kersten, writing for the Center for the American Experiment in Minneapolis, in the Star Tribune, January 17, 2000, “Mixed-sex wrestling is a step back from equality and sense,” points out that the Air Force SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) programs found that airmen were much more stressed when female co-airmen were subjected to simulated violence than male colleagues, something about the importance of gender roles even today. Incredibly, Minnesota law requires allowing females to compete on boys wrestling teams, and boys from Christian schools often forfeit such matches. Equality between the genders has not yet reached pro sports (even with respect to disability and golfer Casey Martin.)  Kersten writes” “A civilized society should teach men that they must not use their superior strength to overpower and control women.” For the military, this statement surelt cuts both ways. 

51 Enlisted soldiers are supposed to look after one another even on liberty. Some commanders will require an entire platoon to show up to help bail a buddy out of jail after getting drunk.

52 Urvashi Vaid, Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay and Lesbian Liberation (New York: Doubleday, 1995).

52a Ch 4, P 159, pr. 3: At a college in Vermont, a ROTC student lost his scholarship when another student accidentally (through mis-delivery) received a gay video he had ordered (Dan Woog, Jocks (Los Angeles, Alyson, 1998), p. 76.

53 Carl Stychin, "Inside and Out of the Military," Law and Sexuality, A Review of Lesbian and Gay Issues, vol. 3, 1993.

54 John Barry and Evan Thomas, "At War over Women," Newsweek, May 12, 1997, p. 48. Many younger troops still resent women, who sometimes are given the advantage of gender norming in physical proficiency tests.

55 Gomes, op. cit., provides some discussion of this "conduct" paradox from a religious perspective.

55a.  The Advocate, Nov. 7, 2000, presents an interview with President Clinton. The president confesses, “Oh, we got killed,” in the 1993 debates, which is certainly not how he made things sound when he gave his “don’t pursue” speech on July 19, 1993.  He refers to House and Senate votes to keep the ban with > 2/3 majorities, sufficient to override any presidential veto, particularly a 68-32 Senate vote (in May, I believe), which, he claims, persuaded him that he would have to “compromise.”  He refers to DADT as Colin Powell’s plan, but it probably came more from Charles Moskos than anyone else (and neither of these men imagined the vitriolic way in which some commanders would treat it).  It is not clear exactly how Clinton, left to his own devices, would have lifted the ban:  “just how to do it” had always been up in the air.  Presumably he wanted to implement a plan like Rand’s, objectively conduct based with no presumption clause (“I thought I was right,” as he once explained in a radio interview while I drove home on S. Glebe Road).  He suggests that a future Congress might be willing to return the policy back to the president, as long as the president is willing to work with the military on the issue, which Clinton insists “must change.”

55b  Rolling Stone, January 4, 2001 presents another interview with Bill Clinton, by Jann S. Wenner, and discusses the military ban again on p. 89. Here, Clinton maintains that the Republicans, especially Senator Bob Dole, intentionally forced the issue quickly to “roll the president” and keep an issue that (given the times even then) many “mainstreamers” would see as silly when the economy was still coming out of recession. Even Stephanopolous (see comments below) echoes that. Clinton also maintains that he wanted to take much more time on this from the beginning. He has declined to resign as “honorary president” of the Boy Scouts of America in the wake of the Dale v. BSA decision, because it would seem like a petty act and because the BSA helps a lot of disadvantaged boys.     

55c.  Bill Clinton talks about the ban in his book My Life. See my review at http://www.doaskdotell.com/books/bclinton.htm  

56 Jim Holobaugh, Torn Allegiances (Boston: Alyson, 1993).

56a Ch 4, P 159, fn 56. Reservists cannot be tried for sex acts "committed" during civilian status; if the acts occur during activation, they could conceivably be activated for court-martial, although this is very rare. Servicemembers discharged through administrative procedures do not lose their right to V.A. medical care for service-related problems.

57 San Jose State University may lose $9 million in defense money for its recent decision to kick ROTC off campus; most other universities in the San Francisco Bay Area have backed down on their threats to toss out ROTC programs. (The Advocate, Apr. 1, 1997, p. 25).

In 1995, a tenured gay art teacher, Mark Wald, “came out” and led an effort to prevent ROTC to coming to the of Washnurn High. Later, parents were angry at the loss of funds and Wald had to endure threats.  Another example of the reach of the ban into the civilian world. (Kwin Mosby, “Making the Grade: Youth Report on Coming Out at School,” Lavender (Minneapolis), June2-15, 2000.

57a Ch 4, P 161, pr. 4. During the Revolutionary War, soldiers sometimes were allowed to bring their dependents with them on campaigns!

57b Ch 4, P 161, pr 4-5. First Lady Hillary Clinton describes day care for children of military personnel as a "readiness issue." She's right, but that certainly smacks of "heterosexism."

58 Reservists and National Guard members must also be available for active duty and deployable on short notice. Some national guard units use moonlighting reservists, rather than civilian employees, to do their paperwork, maintain their computer systems, and the like. One such reservist told me he would be called up to go to Bosnia, say, only if they had to clean a Lan there of computer viruses! Sometimes military specialists with unusual skills (as in intelligence) are put up in hotels, not barracks, during "deployments." Nevertheless, the military's policy on conduct and on gays applies to all servicemembers in military status, even those we know always go home at night.   The notion that more and more military missions will consist of brainwork is borne out by the threat of worms like Code Red and the possibility that the military could be called upon to defend American electronic commerce infrastructure.

59 Rand Corporation (National Defense Research Institute), Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment, (Los Angeles: Rand, 1993), p. 12.

59a  Referring back to note 37, Rand sometimes makes a distinction between “unit cohesion” and “mission cohesion”, a point sometimes made by Chicago columnist Paul Varnell, “Chipping away at military’s gay ban,” p. 26, The Washington Blade, Dec. 7, 2007.

60 "Punishment" given out by peers in one's own unit, rather than by commanders.

61 But when NBC aired the movie on March 30, 1997, it replaced the word "faggoty" with "girly," to conform to broadcast "indecency" standards.

62 Until the 1960's, Washington's second paper had been The Evening Star.

63 Margarethe Cammermeyer, Serving in Silence (New York: Viking, 1993).

64 Bill Moyers, "No Room for Bystanders," Report from the Capitol, Feb. 1993.

65 Scott Akin, "No Longer Under Cover, Navy Man Keith Meinhold Sails Out of the Closet," The Advocate, Dec. 29, 1992, p. 50.

65a The Newsweek cover headline in which Meinhold's likeness appeared in February 1993 was called "Gays and the Military," not "Gays in the military." I once saw this magazine laid out in display, by itself, on a table in the library of Northern Virginia Community College.

66 Meinhold's story in his own words is available at the website http://members.aol.com/kmeinhold/homepage/html

67 "Gays and the Military," Newsweek, Feb. 1, 1993.

68 National Review, April 25, 1993.

69 Akin, op. cit., p. 52

70 New York Times, Mar. 23, 1993 (page A1) and Apr. 5, 1993 (page A18). A commander at Maffat Naval Air Station claimed that Meinhold's presence hurt "morale" and a few peers objected to Meinhold's publicity and added that NCO's of Meinhold's seniority are usually billeted with enough privacy, not available to recruits, to avoid unnecessary intimacy.

71 "Reinstated Gay Sailor Revels in Navy Routine, The New York Times, Nov. 22, 1992, p. A-31. The article gives a little snapshot of Navy life, down to memorizing the manuals a sailor needs to know to keep a reconnaissance plane in the air and the ritual of ironing scratchy Navy winter black trousers.

72 Mixner op. cit., p. 270 provides another synopsis of Meinhold.

73 "The Case of Navy Office Richard D. Selland," The Washington Post, Apr. 2, 1993, p. B1. Selland has made a video (1996) to present his story; contact this author for information.

74 Randy Shilts, Conduct Unbecoming, op. cit., p. 538.

74a Ch 4, P 169, pr 3. (p 133) The legal age for (heterosexual) sexual activity, according to the UCMJ, is 16. Consensual heterosexual sexual (illegal when "on duty" on military "property") encounters are sometimes tolerated in the field, in practice (although military officers have told me they personally do not tolerate any sexual activity in their units). So, sure, the military is treating sexual "conduct" in a discriminatory fashion (all the more when the law doesn't allow homosexual acts even "off duty"). Is pregnancy just as detrimental to order and discipline as homosexual "desire"? Too bad, the courts don't think they're allowed to make such judgments.

The Navy, in fact, has been circulating questionnaires among female sailors trying to determine their willingness to use birth control methods and to avoid pregnancy when deployed. In a volunteer force environment, the military has become very dependent upon female members, and therefore rather schizophrenic about the encroachment upon male domains (hence the "lesbian baiting").

75 Mary Ann Humphrey, My Country, My Right to Serve: Experiences of Gay Men and Women in the Military, World War II to the Present (New York: Harper Collins, 1990), p. 235.

76 Steffan's book describes one ambiguous advance by another midshipman. He rejects this advance. Otherwise, the book neither mentions nor denies sexual activity. The Navy, recall, had never charged him with sexual acts. At one point in his district court trial, an appeals court told the district court judge that Steffan did not have to answer questions about sexual activity because his discharge had been for "status" (Wolinsky, op. cit., p. xiii).

77 Mixner, op. cit., p. 308.

77a. pg 171, pr. 2. The most complete discussion (that I have found) of whether "lifting the ban" would noticeably increase HIV infection in the military appears in the 1993 Rand Report, Sexual Orientation and US Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment, from pp. 242-271. The general impression is that deployment of (heterosexual) military personnel to Third World areas where HIV is endemic (and often spread by heterosexual contact) is likely to become a more significant source of infection. Another point is that "asking" about sexual orientation was never effective in keeping gay men out (at least as long as the issue had not become politicized), and that many men "discover" that they are gay only after joining the military. Repeated military HIV screening (at entry and before deployments) is thought to be very effective. See also James E. Kennedy, About Face (New York, Birch Lane, 1993), op. cit., p. 231 for some reasonable comments.

77b Ch 4, P 171 pr 3: Were the military to ever become concerned about undetected HIV infection (at accession or before deployments), it could start doing the P24 antigen test as well as Elisa/Western Blot. Blood banks already use P24; it can detect infection much earlier during the "window period." So the undetected infection possibility is no argument for "asking."

77c Ch 4, P 171, pr 3: During the mid to late 1980's, the war clause was being phased out of most insurance contracts. At the same time, newspapers were carrying stories with dire predicitions about the prospective effects of the HIV epidemic on insurance companies and even on real estate prices (many of these predictions greatly overblown). The military screening for HIV was at that time often thought to improve the insurance risks for military persons but I can find no published evidence that this has ever been really significant. (But see note 77a about Rand). In one case, an official for a company specializing in insuring military personnel commented to employees in 1990 that his customer base was a good risk because of the lower risk of HIV, but it is not clear whether this comment is based on the military’s HIV testing policy or based on the military gay ban (at that time, the “old” policy) itself.

However, Judge Oliver Gasch, if Steffan (1991), actually writes that "the Court takes judicial notice of the widely praised and accepted final report of the Presidential Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic." Gasch (who had called Steffan a "homo" in the precedings) then tries in a convoluted way to juxtapose behavior and status or inclination to justify his own conclusion that HIV gives the military additional reasons to justify the ban, even if it inadvertently affects "abstinent" homosexuals. (Wolinsky/Sherrill, Gays and the Military, Princetom Univeristy Press, 1993) pp 185-188). Steffan himself (in Honor Bound, on p. 235) points out that the government denied that AIDS had any thing to do with the ban. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, no other court opinions on this refer to this issue. Again, I point out that a few years before, at the beginning of the abyss of this epidemic, I would have hardly thought challenging the ban feasible (any more than it was feasible in the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis). See also note 101.

77d  Joyce Harmon Price reported in the April 13 The Washington Times that Bush’s Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had appointed an publicly open homosexual Stephen Herbits for an important civilian personnel position in the Defense Department.  Not surprisingly, religious right activists like Robert H. Knight and Louis P. Sheldon denounced the moves as apparently an inappropriate conflict of interest, assuming that Herbits might be influenced by his own position on gays in the military in doing his job.  Pro-family groups had already expressed disfavor with Bush’s appointment of another homosexual as AIDS policy director. In the previous Bush administration, the appointment of Peter McWilliams to a high civilian defense post had stirred ire. Perhaps religious conservatives really do want to use the military ban to again restrict defense-related employment for civilian gays as well (as was very much the case in the past).  I have personally had many reservations about the professional appropriateness of anyone publicly active in gay causes to work in a discretionary position involving the military (see http://www.doaskdotell.com/hppub/3rdparty/isethics.htm), but this is more an issue of professionalism and conflict of interest than discrimination.       

78 "To Support and Defend, "video filmed by Campaign for Military Service and distributed by VDI (Los Angeles), June 1992.

79 Jose Zuniga, Soldier of the Year, (New York: Pocket Books, 1994), p. 213.

80 In an interview in George, May 1997, Schwarzkopf points out that blacks had been segregated with the prejudicial notion of their inferiority, whereas gays were to be kept out because their qualities, which Schwarzkopf sees as almost ennobling in some cultural areas, would complicate the bonding between men in a combat unit.

81 Le Blanc, op. cit.

82 Frank Browning, The Culture of Desire: Perversity and Paradox in Gay Lives Today (New York: Crown, 1993).

83 See Vaid, op. cit., for the detailed history of CMS.

84 Jose Zuniga, "My Life in the Military Closet," The New York Times Magazine, June, 1993.

85 Ibid., pp. 237-251

86 Nick Adde, "Gay Officer Sues over 'Unfit' Discharge," The Navy Times, July 10, 1995. "Unfit" means not qualified for duty.

87 Justin had "come out" on ABC "World News Tonight" the day President Clinton initiated his first phase of "don't ask," in Jan., 1993. See Our Community News, Richmond, Va., Apr. 1997, p. 17.

88 Scott Peck, All American Boy (New York: Scribner, 1995).

89 Chandler Burr, "Homosexuality and Biology," Atlantic, May 1993.

90 One former Army officer I have met in the Libertarian Party reported to me incidents of fragging during the Vietnam war.

91 Frank Browning, The Culture of Desire, (New York: Crown, 1993, p. 216-218.

92 Campaign for Military Service, "A Comprehensive Proposal for Lifting the Ban on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Servicemembers in the U.S. Military," May 20, 1993.

93 Tom Clancy, Submarine, a Guided Tour Inside a Nuclear Warship (New York: Berkeley, 1993).

93a  In 2000 I would visit a civilian iron-ore freighter used on Lake Superior until the 1950s and owned by a steel company. The employees were well fed but worked in extremely hot and dangerous conditions. There were staterooms and dining halls for corporate guests. 

94 Les Aspin actually told the Senate that the gay thing was secondary; "morale is taking a few hits because of pay problems and things of that nature." 103rd Congress Senate Armed Services Committee, Vol. 2, p. 68.

95 James Holobaugh, op. cit., p. 90. Holobaugh refers to himself as a "masculine gay."

96 Jose Zuniga, "My Life in the Military Closet," op. cit.

97 E.L., Pattullo, "Why Not Gays in the Military," National Review, Mar. 1, 1993, p. 40.

98 A secret document which affects public policy, as in John Grisham's 1992 novel, The Pelican Brief.

98 a Ch 4 P 183 pr. 6 My position on "openness" by servicemembers must seem like a paradox. There are times to do your job and not to talk too much. There are times to focus on the adaptive needs of the moment and learn from them. Gradually, one wants others to come to respect one for who one is, and this is where being able to "tell," publish, and discuss come into play; but this much be a gradual process, where the respect, comfort, and recognition from others is earned and accumulated.

98b Although commanders are, under DADTDP, not supposed to use information about sexual orientation (as in the Greta Cammermeyer case) gathered specifically for security clearances as the basis for administrative discharge, it seems obvious that commanders can be tempted to launch covert investigations for some other reason given such information. This is a serious problem and really not good security policy. See SLDN's Survival Guide (1997), p. 36. 

98c  I didn’t say it anywhere explicitly in the White House Letter, but certainly my intention was that the military would not interfere with the home life of a servicemember senior enough to live off post. The military would not concern itself with the gender of a person living in the servicemember’s home, shown on a desk “family picture,” given as an emergency contact or named as a beneficiary on a life insurance policy (the 1993 Clinton announcement at least went along with this). The White House Letter never specifically said “don’t ask” but that was also intended to be implied.   (Note: a servicemember must give at least one blood relative or legal spouse as an emergency contact, but may name others.)

98d  Feb 2006: The 82nd Airborne Div. at Fort Bragg NC has investigated and may prosecute up to seven soldiers for participation in what is reported as a gay pornographic videos on a website. Again, as in some cases in civilian life often discussed elsewhere on this site, persons can be penalized for their own web-related activity if that activity would create disturbances when found by others. That principle may be more important than the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy itself, which the Army maintains was violated.

99 From a legal perspective, this proposal means that commanders could prohibit their subordinates from "publishing" their gay sexual orientation. This would certainly encompass putting it on a public Internet space (a blog, weblog, or social networking site like myspace), and elsewhere on this site I have suggested a general blogging policy that would apply to members of the military.  Even on-line bulletin boards fit the legal definition of "publication."  An “open statement” (as in the Clinton July 1993 speech) intended to be seen by other members of one’s unit but not by the public could be prohibited. Statements to family members and personal friends, under the “private choice” paradigm would not be prohibited (in this kind of a policy). The services allow, at their discretion, members to publish opinions (such as letters to newspaper editors) under their own names, but outside of bulletin boards and special publications such as Army Times, such self-expression is usually discouraged ¾ forbidden if it is "reproachful." So this provision would have little practical effect. It seems less credible a dozen years into the Internet age.

For months, even before his reinstatement, Keith Meinhold, in his America Online profile, characterized himself as a Navy volunteer but gay rights activist conscript. See also note 140.

Actually, the legal world recognizes two meanings for the concept of “publication”: (1) conveying information to at least one other person who understands it (this is the definition often used in civil libel cases and would be the legal definition with respect to the 1993 “don’t ask don’t tell” law), or (2) (and the meaning implied here) making a body of information available to any member of the public willing to pay the fair market price for it (which can include free content on the Internet).

One way to characterize a "no publishing" rule would be to say that one cannot discuss one's sexual orientation "within sight" of unit mates when on active-duty status. (But see note on Steve May, last note below. The "no publish" rule could not apply to reservists not on military status). See also note 159. On the other hand, the kinds of "privacy" arguments made by Nunn and Moskos (and one has to consider the legal notion of "pervasivity" of published statements) could mean that intentional "self-outing" could sometimes be construed as an indirect form of "sexual harassment" by gays against straights!

My own conflict of interest rules limit the ability of civilians in management positions to publish controversial material on their own without supervision. These rules are at http://www.doaskdotell.com/content/coirules.htm  Most members of the military have direct reports (even NCO’s – perhaps “specialists” or “technical specialists” etc. do not), so these rules, if applied in the military, would seem to implement a lot of my own “live and let live” policy. (See also discussion of military blogs at http://www.doaskdotell.com/content/blog.htm )

President Clinton has wanted to apply rebuttable presumption only to an “open statement,” or a “self-promotional” statement. The 1993 law could have been worded to read:

That the member has stated in a public forum or in the known presence of other military members that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

I’m no fan of this, but it could have made the “presumption” clause part of the law narrower. 

99A.  Of course, the Steve May case will now poke holes in my original “don’t publish” suggestion. See Jon Barret, “The Accidental Activist: For the first time, The Real World’s Danny and his military boyfriend, Paul, talk about life in the public eye in the age of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ The Advocate, July 3, 2000, p. 39, for the tenuous situations that may occur when the civilian same-sex lover of a military person attracts attention. 

99B.  The military does control what its members say to the media.  The theory is that a person who can fly an airplane with bombs shouldn’t have too much input into public policy (even though we all know that the military vastly manipulated public policy to its advantage during the Cold War, even in its affect on the draft).  There was controversy over retired officers forming groups to endorse candidates, but retired officers have the same freedoms as civilians (almost).  (Comments by Bill McPeake, USAF Ret, September 2000 on McNeal-Lehrer.)  Nevertheless, “Major” Melissa Wells-Petry wrote her book arguing for the military ban (Exclusion, Regnery, 1994) while still on active duty, then resigned.  The Army insisted that she had articulated her own views.  

99c.  PlanetOut.com and Gay.com have provided SLDN’s guidelines for how servicemembers can protect themselves online, especially when using their own private accounds. (The guidelines are authored by attorney Sharra Greer). The web reference is http://www.planetout.com/news/feature.html?sernum=875 or

http://www.gay.com/news/roundups/package.html?sernum=875

99d   On page 263 (iUniverse copy) where I elaborate on my “Live and Let Live” policy, I mention that military commanders would have the authority to control open publication of material by subordinates, including sexual orientation. This would not apply to reservists not on active duty or to ROTC students or pre-ROTC students, but would apply to service academies. I explain “open publication” at my vocabulary link. Former president Bill Clinton, in his book My Life (Knopf, 2004) mentions “Live and Let Live” as his intention with his own July 15 1993 policy, but goes on to describe how many commanders subterfuged it when they could get away with it. As Clinton said in an interview with Larry King, you shouldn’t do something just because you can (get away with it).

99e.  On Aug 5, 2005 SLDN issued a press release advising servicemembers who had been outed (or outed themselves) on gay.com or planetout.com proflles. Up to ten discharges for online profiles had occurred, and they represented 25% of the outing discharges in 2005. The discharges may occur whether a military computer or personal computer was used to make the posting. Here is the press release: http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html?record=2326

99f  “Self-libel” or “auto-libel” in literary works produced by military members or even college students in ROTC programs could be a serious and little known issue, because of the tricky “rebuttable presumption” clause of the 1993 law. The precedent could even affect other areas, like teaching.  I discuss this at http://www.doaskdotell.com/refer/intelct.htm  (look under “libel” and “self-libel”)

100 Again, I want to talk about it just to expose heterosexuals to the implications of their own commitments!

101 The military certainly is free to disqualify persons who, upon medical examination, show obvious STD's and physical evidence of reckless behavior. Were the infectivity of the virus during initial window period found to be stronger than we now believe it to be, it might be necessary to ask recruits if they had engaged in unprotected sex (outside of marriage) with anyone during the ninety days preceding induction. But such a measure would apply to heterosexuals as well.

102 Britain, despite having repealed sodomy laws for civilians, discharges gays under a "don't ask, don't tell" policy similar to ours. British courts upheld this policy in 1996.  Actually, British military regulations after 1994 (and before 2000) were quite explicit in excluding even those with homosexual orientation from enlisting, and at one point the British Navy encouraged underwear inspections, a practice which as far as I know has never been done in the U.S.  Regulations actually mentioned the STD risk of gay men.  Source  is Belkin and Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military. 

102a On September 27, 1999 the European Court of Human Rights struck down the United Kingdom's ban on homosexuals in its armed services. The cases are Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. The United Kingdom and Smith and Grady v. THE United Kingdom. In these cases, the persons had actually been asked if they were homosexuals during investigations and discharged during the mid 1990's. According to its treaty obligations, Britain has until December 1999 to appeal or comply with the ruling. If this stands, the United States will be left as the only major democracy banning gays from serving (with "discretion"). (Note: Germany has a "partial ban" within its voluntary, as opposed to conscript, force and particularly discourages gays from becoming officers; Rand, pp 83-34; Israel, despite its religious culture and use of the (conscript) military for "national socialization" explicitly forbids intentional discrimination against gays in uniform and, even if fraternization rules are looser than in the US, has very explicit rules regarding visible conduct which would have been useful for the US and Britain. Before 1991, however, gays often were not allowed security clearances and gay soldiers often "lived at home.") For details, see ILGA at http://www.ilga.org/.  (Note: http://www.igla.org/ is an international gay and lesbian aquatics site; do not confuse).  Britain has agreed to comply, and in a way, the European Court ruling may make changing the policy more politically facile within the United Kingdom. Britain has also agreed to provide some servicemembers separated under the ban before this ruling with compensation.

As of January 2000, Britain has implemented a Rand-style "code of conduct" applied to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, forbidding fraternization, sexual harassment or any kind of visible offensive conduct (without a "presumption" clause).

Britain has reinstated Richard Young, 25, to the Royal Navy following the European Court’s ruling.

Reference:  http://www.gaymilitary.org/richard.htm

Some of the text of Britain’s “Code of Social Conduct” comes from the Ministry of Defense, and is presented here at http://www.doaskdotell.com/content/britpol1.htm

In May 2000 France announced that it would allow “open” gays to serve (with appropriate conduct rules).  The United States grows more “lonely” among Western democracies with its military antigay policies.

The “new” European Union is now forming a common military (in the style of UN and NATO forces) and it will be important to watch its experience with the gay issues. But to date (Dec 2000) European countries (including Britain now) report few discipline problems associated with having lifted the ban country by country over the years. For more details on overseas militaries and their experience, visit http://www.gaymilitary.org/ucsb.htm. This could eventually lead to a strategy to pressure the United States to follow suit, as the U.S. is in a position of having to justify its policy with the apparent use of underprivileged persons (especially blacks) who perhaps do not enjoy the modern experience of running their own lives and are supposedly unusually vulnerable to others in their social environments, as in the military.  Yet, as noted by Steffan and others, the military has repeatedly hidden Crittenden Report and PERSEREC study that discount the idea that gays really would disrupt the military even in a more divided society like ours.

Jeremy Quittner, writing for The Advocate (1/16/2001), "Military Learning by Example," reports on the efforts by Aaron Belkin, at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, to study foreign militaries that have lifted the ban.  Belkin, on June 15, 2001, wrote an impressive op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle:  “As the largest employer in the country, the military exerts a powerful influence over the distribution of rights and respect in the civilian sphere.  The ban sends the message that gays and lesbians do not deserve equal treatment.  Worse, perhaps, the ban deprives individuals of the right to define their own identity as they see fit.  All discriminatory systems require a legal definition of who is subject to punishment and who is exempt -- and the gay ban is no different.”  See also notes at end of this page.    

For a recent discussion of the relative success that Britain has had with lifting the ban, read the article bt Sarah Lyall, “Gays in the British Military Ask, Tell, and Move On” from the New York Times, Feb. 10, 2001, at http://www10.nytimes.com/2001/02/10/world/10BRIT.html. (NYT requires sign-on for subscription.)  One observation is that up to the mid 1990s witch-hunts in the British military were relatively common, as in the United States.   

In the Spring of 2002, Taiwan attempted to ban gays from its military, and then dropped the ban within days. (see SLDN press release.)

103 Rand Corporation, op. cit.

F104 Interview in Bay Windows, Boston, Oct. 10, 1996.

105 Wolinsky, op. cit., p. 31.

106 Andrew Sullivan, "The Politics of Homosexuality," The New Republic, May 10, 1993, p. 34.

107 Rand, op. cit., p. 269.

108 Rand reports the risk of a false negative (the combined sensitivity of Elisa and Western Blot) is 8 in 1 million, p. 252. The risk could be reduced even further by a newer P24 core antibody test.

109 Rand, op. cit., pp 242-271.

110 Barry Goldwater, The Washington Post.

111 David Mixner, Stranger among Friends, (New York: Bantam, 1996), pp. 324-325.

112 Kennedy, op. cit., p. 270 provides exact (copyright-protected) text.

113 Numerous bills were offered in the House during 1993 requiring the military screen out homosexuals, but were tabled as everyone waited for the President to act.

114 Available in White House papers for July 25, 1993, in any large public library. Or see Frontiers, Aug. 13, 1993, p. 15.

115 Clinton's speech is reprinted in Frontiers, Aug. 27, 1993. It is available at on this site at http://www.doaskdotell.com/content/clintonspeech.pdf or at