Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
122242610
label
Gays in the Military
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
122242610
contentType
document
title
Gays in the Military
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of Legislative Affairs (Clinton Administration)
Felton Newell's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
122242610
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-4447319-20150017F-009-003-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
1ec753a90616bc0c
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2015-0017-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Legislative Affairs
Series/Staff Member:
Felton Newell
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
5280
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Gays in the Military
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
26
6
9
2
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
SUBJECT: Policy on Homosexual Conduct in the Armed Forces
On January 29, 1993, the President directed me to review DoD
policy on homosexuals in the military. The President further
directed that the DOD policy be "practical, realistic, and
consistent with the high standards of combat effectiveness and
unit cohesion our armed forces must maintain."
An extensive review was conducted. I have paid careful
attention to the hearings that have been held by both the House
and Senate Armed Services Committees, conferred with the Joint
Chiefs and acting Secretaries of the Military Departments and
considered recommendations of a working group of senior officers
in the Department of Defense and those of the Rand Corporation.
The Department of Defense has long held that, as a general
rule, homosexuality is incompatible with military service because
it interferes with the factors critical to combat effectiveness,
including unit morale, unit cohesion and individual privacy.
Nevertheless, the Department of Defense also recognizes that
individuals with a homosexual orientation have served with
distinction in the armed services of the United States.
Therefore, it is the policy of the Department of Defense to
judge the suitability of persons to serve in the armed forces on
the basis of their conduct. Homosexual conduct will be grounds
for separation from the military services. Sexual orientation is
considered a personal and private matter, and homosexual
orientation is not a bar to service entry or continued service
unless manifested by homosexual conduct.
I direct the following:
Applicants for military service will not be asked or
required to reveal their sexual orientation. Applicants will be
informed of accession and separation policy.
Servicemembers will be separated for homosexual conduct.
Commanders and investigating agencies will not initiate
inquiries or investigations solely to determine a member's sexual
orientation. Servicemembers will not be asked or required to
reveal their sexual orientation. However, commanders will
continue to initiate inquiries or investigations, as appropriate,
when there is credible information that a basis for discharge or
disciplinary action exists. Authority to initiate inquiries and
investigations involving homosexual conduct shall be limited to
commanders. Commanders will consider, in allocating scarce
investigative resources, that sexual orientation is a personal
and private matter. They will investigate allegations of
violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in an even-
handed manner without regard to whether the conduct alleged is
heterosexual or homosexual or whether it occurs on-base or off-
base. Commanders remain responsible for ensuring that
investigations are conducted properly and that any abuse of
authority is addressed.
The constraints of military service require servicemembers
to keep certain aspects of their personal lives private for the
benefit of the group. Our personnel policies will be clearly
stated and implemented in accordance with due process of law.
Commanders remain responsible for maintaining good order and
discipline. Harassment or violence against other servicemembers
will not be tolerated.
Homosexual conduct is a homosexual act, a statement by the
servicemember that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage
in homosexual acts, or a homosexual marriage or attempted
marriage.
A statement by a servicemember that he or she is homosexual
or bisexual creates a rebuttable presumption that the
servicemember is engaging in homosexual acts or has a propensity
or intent to do SO. The servicemember has the opportunity to
present evidence that he does not engage in homosexual acts and
does not have a propensity or intent to do so. The evidence will
be assessed by the relevant separation authority.
A homosexual act includes any bodily contact, actively
undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same
sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires or any bodily
contact which a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate
a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts. Sexual
orientation is a sexual attraction to individuals of a particular
sex.
The interim policy and administrative separation procedures
that I established on February 3, 1993, will remain in effect
until October 1, 1993. Secretaries of the Military Departments
and responsible officials within the Office of the Secretary of
Defense shall, by October 1, 1993, take such actions as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this directive.
Secretaries of the Military Departments will ensure that all
members of the armed forces are aware of their specific
responsibilities in carrying out this new policy. This
PAGE 004
memorandum creates no substantive or procedural rights. Any
changes to existing policies shall be prospective only.
Policy Guidelines are attached.
CC: Secretary of Transportation
DRAF
POLICY GUIDELINES ON HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT
IN THE ARMED FORCES
Summary of Policy
Accession Policy
-
Applicants for military service will no longer be asked
or required to reveal if they are homosexual or
bisexual, but applicants will be informed of the
conduct that is proscribed for members of the armed
forces, including homosexual conduct.
Discharge Policy
-
Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless
manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will
discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct,
which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that
the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or
attempted marriage to someone of the same gender.
Investigations Policy
-
No investigations or inquiries will be conducted solely
to determine a servicemember's sexual orientation.
Commanders will initiate inquiries or investigations
when there is credible information that a basis for
discharge or disciplinary action exists. Sexual
orientation, absent credible information that a crime
has been committed, will not be the subject of a
criminal investigation. An allegation or statement by
another that a servicemember is a homosexual, alone, is
not grounds for either a criminal investigation or a
commander's inquiry.
Activities
-
Bodily contact between servicemembers of the same sex
that a reasonable person would understand to
demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in
homosexual acts (e.g., handholding or kissing in most
circumstances) will be sufficient to initiate
separation.
-
Activities such as association with known homosexuals,
presence at a gay bar, possessing or reading homosexual
publications, or marching in a gay rights rally in
civilian clothes will not, in and of themselves,
constitute credible information that would provide a
basis for initiating an investigation or serve as the
basis for an administrative discharge under this
policy.
-
The listing by a servicemember of someone of the same
gender as the person to be contacted in case of
emergency, as an insurance beneficiary or in a similar
context, does not provide a basis for separation or
further investigation.
-
Speech within the context of priest-penitent, husband-
wife or attorney-client communications remains
privileged.
Off-Base Conduct
-
No distinction will be made between off-base and on-
base conduct.
-
From the time a member joins the service until
discharge, the servicemember's duty and commitment to
the unit is a 24 hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week
obligation. Military members are required to comply
with both the UCMJ, which is federal law, and military
regulations at all times and in all places.
Unacceptable conduct, homosexual or heterosexual, is
not excused because the servicemember is not "at work."
Investigations and Inquiries
-
Neither investigations nor inquiries will be conducted
solely to determine an individual's sexual orientation.
-
Commanders can initiate investigations into alleged
homosexual conduct when there is credible information
of homosexual acts, prohibited statements or homosexual
marriage.
-
Commanders will exercise sound discretion regarding
when credible information exists, and will evaluate the
information's source and all attendant circumstances to
assess whether the information supports a reasonable
belief that a servicemember has engaged in proscribed
homosexual conduct. Commanders, not investigators,
determine when sufficient credible information exists
to justify a detail of investigative resources to look
into allegations.
2
Credible Information
-
Credible information of homosexual conduct exists when
the information, considered in light of its source and
all attendant circumstances, supports a reasonable
belief that a servicemember has engaged in such
conduct. It requires a determination based on
articulable facts, not just a belief or suspicion.
Security Clearances
-
Questions pertaining to an individual's sexual
orientation are not asked on personnel security
questionnaires. An individual's sexual conduct,
whether homosexual or heterosexual, is a legitimate
security concern only if it could make an individual
susceptible to exploitation or coercion, or indicate a
lack of trustworthiness, reliability, or good judgment
that is required of anyone with access to classified
information.
The Threat of Extortion
-
As long as servicemembers continue to be separated from
military service for engaging in homosexual conduct,
credible information of such behavior can be a basis
for extortion. Although the military cannot eliminate
the potential for the victimization of homosexuals
through blackmail, the policy reduces the risk to
homosexuals by making certain categories of information
largely immaterial to the military's initiation of
investigations.
-
Only credible information that a servicemember engaged
in homosexual conduct will form the basis for
initiating an inquiry or investigation of a
servicemember; suspicion of an individual's sexual
orientation is not a basis, by itself, for official
inquiry or action.
Extortion is a criminal offense, under both the UCMJ
and United States Code, and offenders will be
prosecuted. A servicemember convicted of extortion
risks dishonorable discharge and up to three years
confinement. Civilians found guilty of blackmail under
the U.S. Code may be subject to a $2000 fine and one-
year imprisonment. The risk of blackmail will be
addressed by educating all servicemembers on the policy
and by emphasizing the significant criminal sanctions
facing convicted extortionists.
3
Outing
-
A mere allegation or statement by another that a
servicemember is a homosexual is not grounds for
official action. Commanders will not take official
action against members based on rumor, suspicion or
capricious allegations.
-
However, if a third party provides credible information
that a member has committed a crime or act that
warrants discharge, e.g., engages in homosexual
conduct, the commander may, based on the totality of
the circumstances, conduct an investigation or inquiry,
and take non-judicial or administrative action or
recommend judicial action, as appropriate.
-
Commanders are responsible for initiating an
investigation when credible information exists that a
crime or basis for discharge has been committed. The
commander examines the information and decides whether
an investigation by the Service investigative agency or
a commander inquiry is warranted, or if no action
should be taken.
Harassment
-
Commanders are responsible for maintaining good order
and discipline.
All servicemembers will be treated with dignity and
respect. Hostile treatment or violence against a
servicemember based on a perception of his or her
sexual orientation will not be tolerated.
4
June 16, 1993
MEMORANDUM
To:
Ann Walker, Special Assistant to the President
Office of Communications Research
Fax:
Stuart Trevelyan, Legislative Affairs
From:
Dan Meyer, Research Assistant
Subj:
PRESS CONFRRENCE, NATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO KEEP THE BAN ON HOMOSEXUALS IN THE
MILITARY, U.S. CAPITOL, HC-9.
Overview. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Chairman, Military Personnel Task Force (as
appointed by the House Republican Congressional Research Committee) convened a press
conference with seven other congresspersons and the spokesmen of nine special interest
lobbies after the group met behind closed doors for about forty-five minutes. The conference
unveiled the three television advertisements designed to simultaneously collect petition
names and credit card donations to the "National Campaign to Keep the Ban on
Homosexuals in the Military." The conference was laced with moral statements and harsh
commentary on the state of national security.
o Throughout the opening remarks, reference was made about "opposition." The
conference is best viewed as the far right's attempt to formalize opposition to the
President's plan and to raise public support for their bill: the Military Readiness Act
of 1993. Passage of the MRA would legislate the ban on homosexuality in the armed
forces.
Participants and Highlights of their Remarks. Only six of the congressman and lobbyists
who attended the conference made substantive remarks:
0
Duncan Hunter (R-CA). Made no comments, but issued a written statement
explaining his role as Chairman, House Republican Research Committee and as
President of the "bipartisan" American Security Council (ASC). The ASC is the
"holding company" uniting the governmental and civilian research and lobbying
efforts associated with maintaining the ban against homosexuality.
o Cliff Stearns (R-FL). Rep. Stearns opened the conference by quoting General
Schwartzkopf's line before Congress, "Process is not broken." Rep. Stearns explained
his charge by the House Republican Research Committee to "find the facts"
underlying the issue of gays in the military. Stearns presented a brief review of the
1
06/30/93
13:20
NO. 315
002
1622 LONGWORTH HCP
CLIFF STEARNS. FLORIDA
(202) 225-0871
CHAIRMAN
JON KYL, ARIZONA
CO-CHAIRMAN
TASK FORCE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
HOUSE REPUBLICAN RESEARCH COMMITTEE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
Mr. John M. Fisher
Chairman and CEO
American Security Council Foundation
Congressional Conference Center
Boston, Virginia 22713
Dear John:
I am writing in my role as Chairman of the Military Personnel Task
Force of the House Republican Research Committee. The Task Force has
sponsored many in-depth hearings on the various aspects of President
Clinton's decision to lift the ban on homosexuals serving in the Armed
Forces.
As you may know, my colleagues and I have heard testimony from
many prominent retired flag and general officers. These retired
military leaders were adamantly opposed to President Clinton's
decision, but my Task Force colleagues also wanted to learn the views
of all active duty Admirals and Generals. Accordingly, Rear Admiral
Robert H. Spiro, Jr. USNR (Ret.), the former Under Secretary of the
Army during the Carter Administration and I developed the enclosed
"Confidential Survey."
This was mailed to all 1,040 U.S. flag and general officers
throughout the world, and the 621 responses we received are enclosed.
The purpose of this letter is to make a formal request of the
bipartisan American Security Council Foundation to conduct a
statistical analysis of the survey.
I would like to share the results of this analysis with my
colleagues and the news media. For this reason, I am hoping you will
be able to provide us with a statistical breakdown for every question
in the survey. It will also assist us if you can provide an overall
analysis, as well as results for each of the individual services.
My colleagues on the Military Personnel Task Force will be
conducting a media briefing on Wednesday, June 30th, and we would like
to release your analysis of the "Confidential Survey" at that time. If
your staff has any questions about this project and our methodology
please have them contact Kevin Fitzpatrick at 225-0871. Many thanks.
sincerely,
Clipf Stan
Cliff Stearns
Chairman
06/30/93
13:20
NO. 315
903
SECURITY CAURCIE
FOUND
ION
AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL FOUNDATION
June 30, 1993
The Honorable Cliff Stearns
Chairman
Military Personnel Task Force
1622 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In response to your recent request, I am pleased to enclose our analysis of the
"Confidential Survey" of flag and general officers conducted by the Military Personnel
Task Force. The bipartisan National Security Caucus Institute of the American Security
Council Foundation received completed surveys from 621 Admirals and Generals on
June 22nd. Over the next week, the ASCF staff tabulated responses for all of your
survey questions. As requested, we are providing you with an overall report as well as a
statistical breakdown for each of the services. The attached report also describes the
survey's methodology, and provides a summary of our analysis.
As you may know, the American Security Council Foundation was formed in
1958, and is a tax exempt public policy research, analysis and educational organization
under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The ASCF staff is available to
answer any questions regarding methodology, statistical analysis, or our overall summary.
We hope you find this analysis useful, and we were pleased to have the
opportunity to assist the Military Personnel Task Force.
Sincerely, John M Fad
John M. Fisher
Chairman and CEO
cc: Honorable Duncan Hunter
Honorable Joe Barton
Honorable Robert K. Dornan
Honorable Sam Johnson
Honorable Jon Kyl
1155 15th Street N.W., Suite 1101
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 484-1676 FAX: (202) 296-9547
Washington Communications Center
Boston, Virginia 22713
(703) 547-1776 FAX: (703) 547-9737
06/30/93
13:21
NO. 315
904
SECURITY COUNCIL
FOUNDATION
AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL FOUNDATION
CONFIDENTIAL SURVEY OF 1,040 ACTIVE DUTY
U.S. FLAG AND GENERAL OFFICERS
SPONSORED BY
THE MILITARY PERSONNEL TASK FORCE
OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN RESEARCH COMMITTEE
METHODOLOGY AND SUMMARY
BY THE
AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL FOUNDATION
DATES: JUNE 7-21, 1993
NUMBER RESPONDING: 621
Methodology
The Military Personnel Task Force survey was sent to 1,040 flag and general officers
in the U.S. Armed Forces between June 7th and 21st, 1993. The total number of
respondents as of June 22nd was 621 active duty general officers.
The respondents were asked by Chairman Cliff Stearns of the Task Force not to
reveal their identity, either name or command, in order to ensure complete candor. For
statistical purposes only, respondents were asked to identify their service branch in order to
determine whether there were major ideological differences among the services. The
Military Personnel Task Force did not identify the return survey in any way.
According to Chairman Stearns, "The purpose of this survey is to help educate
decision-makers about the current attitudes of those who serve in leadership positions within
the United States military. The views of those currently in command positions are perhaps
the most important factor in helping policymakers deal with this contentious issue."
Summary
Of the 621 officers who responded, 602 indicated opposition to lifting the ban on
homosexuals in the military. Additional probing revealed that these reservations were based
on practical issues such as lower recruitment, health risks, housing and training,
and opposition of leaders such as General Colin Powell for reasons of morale and discipline.
When such issues are introduced by the unique reality of the military, the officers conclude,
by a roughly 31 to 1 ratio, that they are unwilling to force the military to accept
homosexuals.
1155 15th Street N.W., Suite 1101
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 484-1676 FAX: (202) 296-9547
Washington Communications Center
Boston, Virginia 22713
(703) 547-1776 FAX: (703) 547-9737
06/30/93
13:22
NO. 315
005
Among findings of the Confidential Survey were the following:
*
By a strong majority, 97.6% of the surveyed officers agree with General Colin
Powell's statement that allowing homosexuals in the military would be "prejudicial to
good order and discipline." Only 13 officers, or 2.1%, disagree. This is a very
significant finding when most officers favor the opinion of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff over their Commander-in-Chief.
*
When asked whether they view the issue of gays in the military as one of civil rights
or national security, 88.7% of the officers indicated that it is solely an issue of
national security. 6% said it was exclusively an issue of civil rights.
*
By a 15 to 1 ratio, a vast majority of senior officers believe that heterosexual soldiers
should not be forced to share the same sleeping and bath facilities with homosexual
soldiers. According to the survey, 97.6% of the officers believe that young people
will be less likely to join the military if the gay ban is lifted and service members are
forced to share shower, toilet and sleeping facilities with homosexuals. 0.48% say
young people will be more likely to join the military.
*
When considering the health risks associated with accepting homosexuals in the
military, a majority of officers, 82.3%, responded that it would pose a substantial
threat. Concerns center around HIV and AIDS prevalence in the homosexual
community and the dangers of infecting the military's "walking blood supply."
When officers were asked about the effects of open homosexuals in the military, of
greatest concern was the conclusion that acknowledged homosexuals would undermine
soldier morale and the cohesiveness and readiness of the combat unit. 98.1% of those
responding indicated a possible detrimental effect on the morale of those in uniform.
99% said open homosexuals would significantly disrupt unit cohesion and readiness.
*
A strong majority of officers believes that forcing the military to accept homosexuals
would hurt our all-volunteer military's recruiting efforts. 98.4% indicated that some
heterosexual soldiers would be deterred from serving Interestingly, however, only
52.5% indicated that it would lead to large numbers of heterosexual soldiers seeking
discharges.
Another interesting result of the poll appears to be that while 58.9% of the officers
believe they could give a fair performance evaluation of a homosexual solider under
their command, only 28.2% believe they would receive a fair evaluation from a
homosexual counterpart if he were a commanding officer.
The results of this survey clearly indicate that the nation's senior military leadership
has underlying, deeply-felt concerns about President Clinton's proposals.
06/30/93
13:22
NO. 315
006
Center for Military Readiness
CMR
P.O. Box 2324
Livonia, Michigan 48151
313/464-9430
Fax 313/464-6678
ELAINE DONNELLY
President
PENTAGON PLAYING SPECIAL INTEREST POLITICS
For Immediate Release
June 30, 1993
Board of Advisors
GEN. ROBERT H. BARROW
FORMER COMMANDANT. USMC RET.
Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, charged
ALLAN CARLSON, PHD
today that the process being followed by the Department of Defense to formulate
President Rocklord institute
policy on homosexuals in the military is being undermined and skewed by special
VICE ADM. DUDLEY CARLSON
interest politics.
USN RET
LINDA CHAVEZ
She also pointed out that because of exclusive, insider access to Pentagon
Schior Fellow, Manhattan Instrute
policy-makers during the deliberations of an internal DOD Military Working
BG SAMUEL G. COCKERHAM
Group, it appears that activists for attorneys representing homosexual groups will
USA RET.
be well-positioned to exploit irreconcilable contradictions in any form of "Don't
LTG DANIEL O. GRAILAM. USA RET.
Ask, Don't Tell" policy that might be endorsed by the Administration.
Director. High Frontier
DAVID HOROWITZ
"Homosexual activists are complaining that the various "Don't Ask, Don't
President Center for the Study of
Popular Culture
Tell" proposals, including one being promoted by Rep. Barney Frank, are
unacceptable to them. The truth is, however, that the Campaign for Military
BEVERLY LAHAYE
President
Service and their attorneys were granted direct access to the Pentagon's Working
concerned Women for America
Group during their secret policy-making process, while individuals and groups
CAPT. EUGENE B. "Reo" MCDANIEL
opposed to lifting the ban were not invited to address the group until after the
USN RET.
President, American Defense insure
Policy Outline, dated June 8, had been completed.
LT Cod. OLIVER NORTH, USMC RET.
President. Freedom Alliance
"The Working Group refused to answer questions about the status of the
report, or what was presented to them by the Campaign for Military Service,
KATE WALSH O'BEIRNE
whose President, David Mixner, raised $3.4 million for the President's campaign.
Con. JOHN RIPLEY. USMC RET.
In addition, President Clinton and White House officials have reportedly met
twice with homosexual activists, while organizations opposed to lifting the ban
PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY
President. Lagic Forum
have not, to my knowledge, enjoyed similar access."
LTG RICHARD G. TREPHY USA Ruf.
Mrs. Donnelly continued, "The result of this politically-charged process
MSGT SARAH F. WHITE. USAFR
is a set of recommendations that constitute a collection of contradictions and
strategic loopholes that will be easy to exploit in future court challenges. I am
also concerned that the current Administration's Department of Justice is too
06/30/93
13:23
NO. 315
Q07
PAGE 2 -- CENTER FOR MILITARY READINESS
politicized to defend the interests of the military if the shaky premises of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
are adopted and then challenged in court.
Mrs. Donnelly also released a brief summary listing twenty-one points of concern raised
by the Military Working Group's Policy Outline.
"Barney Frank is right in suggesting that any form of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that passes
Congress would be an important first step in achieving the gay agenda. This is why nothing
short of codification of the ban as it was prior to January, 1993 will serve to preserve the
interests of men and women in uniform."
The Center for Military Readiness is a public policy educational organization that is
concerned with military personnel issues. During 1992, Mrs. Donnelly served as a member of
the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. Mrs. Donnelly
can be reached in Washington D.C. at 202/544-0355.
*******
06/30/93
13:23
NO. 315
008
TWENTY-ONE PROBLEMS WITH "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL"
-- HOMOSEXUALS IN THE MILITARY --
Re:
OSD Military Working Group -- Recommended Policy Outline
Submitted to the Secretary of Defense 8 June 1993
The Pentagon's latest version of a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is unacceptable. It is full
of ambiguities and loopholes that will invite successful litigation by activist groups seeking to
repeal the ban on homosexuality in the military. If adopted as a so-called "compromise," the
policy's contradictory statements and vague definitions would make it relatively easy for attorneys
for homosexual groups to achieve their goals through the courts, rather than the Congress.
Regardless of the details, any "compromise" policy that declares homosexual conduct to
be incompatible with military service, but permits those who commit homosexual acts to join,
is in direct contradiction with itself. The shaky premises behind all versions of "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell" will please no one but an army of activist attorneys.
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" schemes cannot replace the clear, legally defensible policies which
existed prior to January of 1993. The classic concept that "homosexuality is incompatible with
military service" must be codified in law, not rendered meaningless for the sake of political
expediency and social experimentation.
1)
The first point listed under the Outline's "Key Policy Features" indicates that
"Sexual orientation will be considered a personal and private matter. The Armed
Forces won't ask and no one will be required to reveal their sexual orientation."
2)
This policy contradicts and cancels out the fundamental principle of current policy
that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" which is mentioned,
but only in a secondary "Discussion" section. If this is the policy, why is it not
in the policy statement?
3)
Once the military embraces the "personal and private" idea it undermines its
ability to legally defend the "incompatible with military service" concept.
Creating a new "right of privacy" would also create new problems because in the
military, any kind of privacy is at a premium.
4)
Questions regarding homosexuality are no more unreasonable than those asked
about drug abuse, underage drinking, or other problems with the law.
5)
The second point says that "The presence in the Armed Forces of persons who
engage in homosexual acts; who state they are homosexual or bisexual; or marry
or attempt to marry persons of the same gender remains inconsistent with the
requirement to maintain high standards of combat effectiveness and unit
cohesion."
06/30/93
13:24
NO. 315
009
6)
The underlined phrase above appears to support the military judgement that
"homosexuality is incompatible with military service," but it imposes a burden of
proof regarding "combat effectiveness and unit cohesion" that would be extremely
difficult for commanders to meet, especially in peacetime.
7)
A change of this kind would likely be construed by future courts as significant
legislative history in favor of the homosexual agenda.
8)
The statement is also vulnerable to challenge because of the legally shaky premise
that being a homosexual in the military is acceptable, but saying that you are is
not.
9)
Secrecy does not resolve the medical problem. Since homosexual activity is
known to create high risk of HIV infection and other sexually-transmitted
diseases, forbidding commanders to ask precautionary questions denies military
people the same protection as civilians, who are asked many personal questions
about prior sexual activity before they are allowed to donate blood.
10)
The third point amplifies the contradiction by stating that "Sexual orientation
alone is not a bar to service entry or continued service unless manifested by
homosexual acts, statements, or marriages."
11)
In addition to conflicting with the "incompatible with military service" standard,
this point implies that persons with a homosexual orientation can join the service
if they remain both silent and celibate. This is unrealistic, unenforceable, and
unacceptable to both sides.
12)
LTC William J. Gregor (USA Ret), a former Professor of Military Science at the
University of Michigan outlines a likely scenario:
If a recruit is not asked about the "private matter" of his homosexuality upon
entry, his attorney would argue that since his sexual conduct prior to induction
was not important to the military, his sexual behavior after induction ought not be
important either. Furthermore, if his sexual orientation were revealed indirectly--
absent evidence of a homosexual act--he could and would argue that it is not a
valid basis for separation.
In other words, if the military judgement that homosexuality is incompatible with
military discipline is set aside, then the military judgement that particular behavior
is disruptive becomes suspect and subject to challenge in court.
13)
Point four creates a legal nightmare for commanders trying to enforce
contradictory policies.
06/30/93
13:25
NO. 315
910
14)
There is no definition of what kind of "credible information" may allow a
commander to initiate an inquiry or investigation regarding homosexuality. Under
current policy, persons belonging to the class known as "homosexuals" are defined
by their intention to engage in homosexual acts.
15)
Inflammatory language in the document's "Investigative Policy Statement"
referring to "witchhunts, etc." would also deter commanders from fulfilling their
responsibilities to "be vigilant in inspecting the conduct of all persons placed
under their command (and) to guard against and suppress all dissolute and
immoral practices." (Section 5947, Title 10, USC)
16)
Point five appears to toughen the policy, because it would punish (with discharge)
any servicemember who engages in "any act involving bodily contact between
members of the same sex for purposes of sexual gratification."
17)
At the present time, a single act which is not likely to recur and was not
accompanied by force or coercion is not considered a threat to good order and
discipline, and therefore does not constitute grounds for dismissal on the grounds
of homosexuality. (This is for the protection of a young service member who, for
example, may do something out of character while drunk and on liberty, but is not
a homosexual.)
18)
The proposed "tougher" standard may be more vulnerable, however, to legal
challenge. Current policies have withstood challenge because they do not split
hairs over orientation and action; persons belonging to the class known as
"homosexuals" are defined by their intention and desire to engage in homosexual
acts.
19)
Point 6 calls for an "education plan" to inform all personnel about the policy "so
as to reinforce the principle that all service members can serve without fear of
unwarranted intrusions into their personal lives."
20)
The neutral-sounding wording cannot disguise what would quickly become an
all-out internal campaign to promote acceptance of homosexuality in the military,
executed with the full force of military discipline. It will, in effect, teach
servicemembers how to tolerate behavior in others that is contrary to the US Code
of Military Justice.
21)
The educational plan also departs from the concept that the needs of the military
must take precedence over the needs and desires of individuals. The long-term
consequences of such a radical change in the principles that govern the military
would be truly revolutionary and contrary to the best interests of our armed forces.
Prepared by the Center for Military Readiness -- Elaine Donnelly, President -- P. O. Box 2324,
Livonia, MI 48152.
06/30/93
13:25
NO. 315
911
CLIFF STEARNS. FLORIDA
1622 LONGWORTH HOB
CHAIRMAN
(202) 225-0871
JON KYL, ARIZONA
CO-CHAIRMAN
TASK FORCE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
HOUSE REPUBLICAN RESEARCH COMMITTEE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE
CONTACT: Kevin Fitzpatrick
202-225-0871
NEW CONGRESSIONAL SURVEY OF ALL ACTIVE-DUTY
ADMIRALS AND GENERALS SHOWS OVERWHELMING
OPPOSITION TO LIFTING MILITARY GAY BAN
CONFIDENTIAL SURVEY ALSO POINTS TO TROUBLE FOR
PRESIDENT CLINTON WITH MILITARY LEADERSHIP IF
COMPROMISE IS ADOPTED
If President Clinton attempts to implement even a
compromise on his decision to allow homosexuals in the
military, he does so at the risk of further alienating the flag
officers who serve under his command and who would have
to implement the Clinton policy within their units.
That's the conclusion of a new, confidential survey of all
1,040 Generals and Admirals presently on active duty. The
survey, conducted by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FLA), Chairman
of the House Republican Research Committee's Task Force
on Military Personnel, was taken by mail between June 7
and June 21, 1993. Rep. Stearns' questionnaire
emphasized that responses would be confidential and should
be unsigned in order to elicit the most candid opinions. from
the military's most senior officers. The survey drew 621
respondents. Congressman Stearns called this "an
overwhelming response for a voluntary survey and at least
double what we expected."
The survey found that 96.94 percent of the respondents
support the current ban on homosexuals in the military.
Similarly, 97.6 percent agree with the statement by the
General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
that allowing homosexuals in the military would be
"prejudicial to good order and discipline." And only 6.0
percent agree with the contention of homosexual advocacy
groups that this is an issue of "civil rights". Instead , 88.7
percent of the senior officers see it as a question of "national
security".
"This is the senior uniformed leadership of the Army, Navy,
Air Force and Marines, and it appears that President Clinton
is about to ignore their overwhelming and strongly-felt
advice," said Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Chairman of the
Republican Research Committee. "These are the men and
women who are going to have to live with and implement
whatever rules are put together by President Clinton and
Secretary Aspin. and try to implement them. They're not
only saying that it's a bad idea -- they are demonstrating
that lifting the ban will devastate the morale and welfare of
our men and women in uniform."
"This also shows the folly of any compromise on this issue,"
said Rep. Stearns. "Even though we didn't specifically poll on
'don't ask, don't tell', the confidential survey demonstrates
a depth of opposition to any fundamental change that would
allow homosexuals to serve in the military. Through their
overwhelming opposition, our military leaders are signalling
us that a compromise would be a big mistake."
"The White House and the Congressional leadership delayed
this issue for six months, and the stated purpose was to
allow for hearings and fact-finding, " said Rep. Hunter. "This
confidential survey illustrates the most significant fact of
all:provides us one of the most significant facts of all: the
senior leadership of our Armed Forces are totally,
unalterably opposed to changes in the present policy. Any
06/30/93
13:26
NO. 315
913
effort to change the policy, even slightly, will be destructive
to our national security."
Rep. Stearns also noted that he is circulating a letter among
House colleagues, urging Chairman Powell to "stand firm"
against any compromise proposal from the White House on
the gay ban. That letter will be sent to Powell later this week.
06/30/93
13:27
NO. 315
D14
RECUMITY COUNTIL
POUNDATION
YON
AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL FOUNDATION
CONFIDENTIAL SURVEY OF 1,040 ACTIVE DUTY
U.S. FLAG AND GENERAL OFFICERS
SPONSORED BY
THE MILITARY PERSONNEL TASK FORCE
OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN RESEARCH COMMITTEE
SELECTED QUOTATIONS FROM SERVICE OFFICERS
BY THE
AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL FOUNDATION
DATES: JUNE 7-21, 1993
Army General:
"Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the survey on homosexuals in the
military. Here are some unsolicited comments which I hope may be of use. First, if the
decision is made to allow homosexuals to serve, the leaders I know will try mightily to make
it work without impact on the force.
"Regardless of their efforts, the issue is so divisive that I do not see how some
degradation in readiness can be avoided. The key to me is behavior; another is life-style;
another is openness. We have rules now which proscribe inappropriate heterosexual and
homosexual behavior. Both are harmful to morale and discipline. I would be opposed to openly
permitting homosexuals to serve; said another way, I would be opposed to allowing homosexuals
to be acknowledged as serving.
"We have said for years that service in the Army involves a commitment to a way of life;
service is not just a job. Our service commitment carries with it the agreement to give up some
rights and behavior seen as normal by many Americans otherwise employed. I do believe that
telling homosexuals that their price for service is to forgo admission of their sexuality and
practice of sex. Homosexuality is inconsistent with other rights and privileges foregone by
others."
1155 15th Street N.W., Suite 1101
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 484-1676 FAX: (202) 296-9547
Washington Communications Center
Boston, Virginia 22713
(703) 547-1776 FAX: (703) 547-9737
06/30/93
13:27
NO. 315
915
Army Officer:
"
Open homosexuality in our military is "dead wrong," and I think a waste of
individual, organizational, and institutional energies to even consider it."
"
The detrimental effect of open homosexuality in our military cannot be overstated.
It will be devastating to cohesiveness, morale and overall readiness. We are constantly faced
with the issue of keeping a first class military with declining resources--do more with less and
do it better. We can work those issues to the best of our ability because it's our job and we
deeply believe in our American way of government. We should not have forced upon us the
requirement to enforce good order and discipline, which are absolutes, in an environment where
open homosexuality is permitted. I do not believe that [the homosexual] lifestyle is moral and
would find it extremely difficult to convince soldiers they should live and work with them when
they too think it's immoral--in fact, I couldn't."
Army Officer:
"This war and combat thing is bad business. I have been there, and I have seen American
soldiers shot, and I have talked to them right after they were shot when they were scared, and
I have seen them dead. And I have driven up that farm lane in a government car to tell that man
out there on the tractor that his son has been killed.
"The only way you can live with all that is to know that you have done your best as a
commander and leader. The unit has to pull together as a team and it cannot be distracted by
anything. Homosexuals will badly disrupt the outfit--the company, the battalion, the Army. The
result will be a less mission-capable force and more soldiers shot, wounded and killed. That
outcome is not acceptable.
"I am not a homophobe--(whatever that is exactly)
"Allowing homosexuals to openly serve will badly hurt recruiting, I believe.
"Some would paint officers and key Army leaders as intolerant by reflex and prejudiced
by nature. That won't square. If the White officers felt this way why would they join the Army
where they will have lots of minority soldiers in their outfit and where they will work with and
for Black and Hispanic officers? I have worked for 4 Black officers (as a Captain, Major and
Brigadier General) and for an Hispanic officer (as a Captain); (when I say "worked for," I
mean they wrote my efficiency report.)
"It took 20 years to put together the Army we have now. Unfortunately, it can be taken
apart overnight.
"Don't take the volunteer force for granted."
06/30/93
13:28
NO. 315
916
Marine General:
"When the issue [gays in the military] first began to dominate the media, there was a
groundswell of resentment which included significant numbers of Marines who voiced intent to
separate [from the military] on moral, religious and other grounds. We have urged Marines to
await the outcome of the Administration's deliberations on 15 July, and have further stressed that
Marines do not desert the Corps during times of peril or stress, irrespective of the cause of the
peril or stress. This appears to have mitigated some of the early reactions which included
statements of intent to leave the Corps. However, I am convinced that a significant number of
Marines would be lost, either through request for early discharge or election not to enlist."
Navy Officer:
"I am asked frequently [about gays in the military], and my sailors do not want this.
They do not support what they feel is moral weakness-it will affect unit cohesion and
effectiveness, not necessarily because of performance but because of lack of respect and trust."
Navy Officer:
"I personally, professionally and with great silent feeling oppose any change in the
present policy. If the policy is changed, I will look forward to leaving the military as soon as
I'm allowed."
Navy Officer:
"On this issue, the country and mankind should first condone [homosexuality] before
forcing it onto our military as another social experiment."
Marine Officer:
"Is the American taxpayer prepared to assume this burden?"
Army Officer:
"[A homosexual soldier's] sexual orientation would be seen as a professional liability in
terms of leadership potential"
Army Officer:
"This issue, 'allowing homosexuals into the military, is seriously affecting our soldiers'
respect for and confidence in our Commander-in-Chief."
06/30/93
13:28
NO. 315
917
HECURITY COUNCIL
FOCNDATION
NOTE
AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL FOUNDATION
CONFIDENTIAL SURVEY OF 1,040 ACTIVE DUTY
U.S. FLAG AND GENERAL OFFICERS
SPONSORED BY
THE MILITARY PERSONNEL TASK FORCE
OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN RESEARCH COMMITTEE
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FROM COMBINED SERVICES
BY THE
AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL FOUNDATION
DATES: JUNE 7-21, 1993
NUMBER RESPONDING: 621
1.
General Colin Powell has said that allowing homosexuals in the military would be
"prejudicial to good order and discipline." Do you agree with this statement?
Yes:
606
97.58%
No:
13
2.09%
No Opinion:
0
0.0%
Other:
2
0.32%
2.
Do you view the issue of gays in the military as one of civil rights or of national
security?
Civil Rights:
37
5.96%
National Security:
551
88.73%
No Opinion:
12
1.93%
Other:
12
1.93%
1155 15th Street N.W., Suite 1101
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 484-1676 FAX: (202) 296-9547
Washington Communications Center
Boston, Virginia 22713
(703) 547-1776 FAX: (703) 547-9737
06/30/93
13:29
NO. 315
D18
Both:
9
1.45%
3.
Do you think homosexuals in the military should share the same sleeping and bath
facilities?
Yes:
36
5.80%
No:
567
91.3%
No Opinion:
16
2.58%
Other:
2
0.32%
4.
Do you think young people will be more or less likely to join the military if they have
to share the same facilities with homosexuals?
More Likely:
3
0.48%
Less Likely:
606
97.58%
No Opinion:
11
1.77%
Other:
1
0.16%
5.
Do you think homosexuals pose a health threat to the military?
Yes:
511
82.29%
No:
68
10.95%
No Opinion:
39
6.28%
Other:
3
0.48%
6.
Based on your military experience, do you feel the presence of open homosexuals in
the military would:
Undermine soldier's morale?
Yes:
609
98.07%
No:
8
1.29%
06/30/93
13:29
NO. 315
D19
No Opinion:
4
0.64%
B. Undermine the cohesiveness and readiness of a combat unit?
Yes:
615
99.03%
No:
6
0.97%
No Opinion:
0
0.0%
C. Deter some heterosexual males from joining the military?
Yes:
611
98.39%
No:
6
0.97%
No Opinion:
4
0.64%
D. Lead to large numbers of heterosexual soldiers seeking discharges?
Yes:
326
52.50%
No:
208
33.49%
No Opinion:
76
12.24%
Other:
11
1.77%
7.
If one of the soldiers under your command were an openly practicing homosexual, do
you think you could give a fair performance evaluation of that soldier?
Yes:
366
58.94%
No:
196
31.56%
No Opinion:
51
8.21%
Other:
8
1.29%
8.
If the situation were reversed and one of your commanding officers were an openly
practicing homosexual, do you think you would receive a fair performance evaluation?
Yes:
175
28.18%
No:
262
42.19%
06/30/93
13:29
NO. 315
920
No Opinion:
174
28.02%
Other:
10
1.63%
9.
Do you support the ban on homosexuals in the military?
Yes:
602
96.94%
No:
16
2.58%
No Opinion:
2
0.32%
Other:
1
0.16%
06/30/93
13:30
NO. 315
921
SECURITY COENCIL
FOUNDATION
AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL FOUNDATION
CONFIDENTIAL SURVEY OF 1,040 ACTIVE DUTY
U.S. FLAG AND GENERAL OFFICERS
SPONSORED BY
THE MILITARY PERSONNEL TASK FORCE
OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN RESEARCH COMMITTEE
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FROM THE U.S. NAVY
BY THE
AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL FOUNDATION
DATES: JUNE 7-21, 1993
NUMBER RESPONDING: 145
1.
General Colin Powell has said that allowing homosexuals in the military would be
"prejudicial to good order and discipline." Do you agree with this statement?
Yes:
141
97.24%
No:
3
2.07%
No Opinion:
0
0.0%
Other:
1
0.69%
2.
Do you view the issue of gays in the military as one of civil rights or of national
security?
Civil Rights:
14
9.66%
National Security:
120
82.76%
No Opinion:
4
2.76%
1155 15th Street N.W., Suite 1101
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 484-1676 FAX: (202) 296-9547
Washington Communications Center
Boston, Virginia 22713
(703) 547-1776 FAX: (703) 547-9737
06/30/93
13:30
NO. 315
922
Other:
2
1.38%
Both:
5
3.45%
3.
Do you think homosexuals in the military should share the same sleeping and bath
facilities?
Yes:
14
9.66%
No:
125
86.21%
No Opinion:
6
4.14%
4.
Do you think young people will be more or less likely to join the military if they have
to share the same facilities with homosexuals?
More Likely:
0
0.0%
Less Likely:
141
97.24%
No Opinion:
4
2.76%
5.
Do you think homosexuals pose a health threat to the military?
Yes:
111
76.55%
No:
17
11.72%
No Opinion:
16
11.03%
Other:
1
0.69%
6.
Based on your military experience, do you feel the presence of open homosexuals in the
military would:
A. Undermine soldier's morale?
Yes:
140
96.55%
No:
5
3.45%
No Opinion:
0
0.0%
06/30/93
13:31
NO. 315
923
B. Undermine the cohesiveness and readiness of a combat unit?
Yes:
142
97.93%
No:
3
2.07%
No Opinion:
0
0.0%
C. Deter some heterosexual males from joining the military?
Yes:
141
97.24%
No:
3
2.07%
No Opinion:
1
0.69%
D. Lead to large numbers of heterosexual soldiers seeking discharges?
Yes:
70
48.28%
No:
55
37.93%
No Opinion:
15
10.34%
Other:
5
3.45%
7.
If one of the soldiers under your command were an openly practicing homosexual, do
you think you could give a fair performance evaluation of that soldier?
Yes:
92
63.45%
No:
44
30.34%
No Opinion:
6
4.14%
Other:
3
2.07%
8.
If the situation were reversed and one of your commanding officers were an openly
practicing homosexual, do you think you would receive a fair performance evaluation?
Yes:
49
33.79%
No:
53
36.55%
06/30/93
13:31
NO.315
924
No Opinion:
37
25.52%
Other:
6
4.14%
9.
Do you support the ban on homosexuals in the military?
Yes:
140
96.55%
No:
4
2.76%
No Opinion:
1
0.69%
06/30/93
13:31
NO. 315
925
DEPARTMENT SECURITY BODNCIL
FUUNHATION
AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL FOUNDATION
CONFIDENTIAL SURVEY OF 1,040 ACTIVE DUTY
U.S. FLAG AND GENERAL OFFICERS
SPONSORED BY
THE MILITARY PERSONNEL TASK FORCE
OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN RESEARCH COMMITTEE
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FROM THE U.S AIR FORCE
BY THE
AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL FOUNDATION
DATES: JUNE 7-21, 1993
NUMBER RESPONDING: 187
1.
General Colin Powell has said that allowing homosexuals in the military would be
"prejudicial to good order and discipline." Do you agree with this statement?
Yes:
181
96.79%
No:
5
2.67%
No Opinion:
0
0.0%
Other:
1
0.53%
2.
Do you view the issue of gays in the military as one of civil rights or of national
security?
Civil Rights:
12
6.42%
National Security:
166
88.77%
No Opinion:
3
1.60%
1155 15th Street N.W., Suite 1101
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 484-1676 FAX: (202) 296-9547
Washington Communications Center
Boston, Virginia 22713
(703) 547-1776 FAX: (703) 547-9737
06/30/93
13:32
NO.315
926
Other:
2
1.07%
Both:
4
2.14%
3.
Do you think homosexuals in the military should share the same sleeping and bath
facilities?
Yes:
7
3.74%
No:
176
94.12%
No Opinion:
3
1.60%
Other:
1
0.53%
4.
Do you think young people will be more or less likely to join the military if they have
to share the same facilities with homosexuals?
More Likely:
3
1.60%
Less Likely:
180
96.26%
No Opinion:
4
2.14%
5.
Do you think homosexuals pose a health threat to the military?
Yes:
150
80.21%
No:
28
14.97%
No Opinion:
8
4.28%
Other:
1
0.53%
6.
Based on your military experience, do you feel the presence of open homosexuals in the
military would:
A. Undermine soldier's morale?
Yes:
181
96.79%
No:
3
1.60%
06/30/93
13:32
NO. 315
027
No Opinion:
3
1.60%
B. Undermine the cohesiveness and readiness of a combat unit?
Yes:
185
98.93%
No:
2
1.07%
No Opinion:
0
0.0%
C. Deter some heterosexual males from joining the military?
Yes:
184
98.4%
No:
2
1.07%
No Opinion:
1
0.53%
D. Lead to large numbers of heterosexual soldiers seeking discharges?
Yes:
80
42.78%
No:
75
40.11%
No Opinion:
29
15.50%
Other:
3
1.60%
7.
If one of the soldiers under your command were an openly practicing homosexual, do
you think you could give a fair performance evaluation of that soldier?
Yes:
110
58.82%
No:
67
35.83%
No Opinion:
9
4.81%
Other:
1
0.53%
8.
If the situation were reversed and one of your commanding officers were an openly
practicing homosexual, do you think you would receive a fair performance evaluation?
Yes:
54
28.88%
No:
70
37.43%
06/30/93
13:32
NO. 315
928
/
No Opinion:
62
33.16%
Other:
1
0.53%
9.
Do you support the ban on homosexuals in the military?
Yes:
178
95.19%
No:
8
4.28%
No Opinion:
0
0.0%
Other:
1
0.53%
06/30/93
13:33
NO. 315
029
AMERICAN SECURITY PAYMENT
COUNDATION
AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL FOUNDATION
CONFIDENTIAL SURVEY OF 1,040 ACTIVE DUTY
U.S. FLAG AND GENERAL OFFICERS
SPONSORED BY
THE MILITARY PERSONNEL TASK FORCE
OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN RESEARCH COMMITTEE
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FROM U.S. MARINE CORPS
BY THE
AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL FOUNDATION
DATES: JUNE 7-21, 1993
NUMBER RESPONDING: 57
1.
General Colin Powell has said that allowing homosexuals in the military would be
"prejudicial to good order and discipline." Do you agree with this statement?
Yes:
57
100.0%
No:
0
0.0%
No Opinion:
0
0.0%
2.
Do you view the issue of gays in the military as one of civil rights or of national
security?
Civil Rights:
1
1.75%
National Security:
55
96.49%
No Opinion:
1
1.75%
1155 15th Street N.W., Suite 1101
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 484-1676 FAX: (202) 296-9547
Washington Communications Center
Boston, Virginia 22713
(703) 547-1776 FAX: (703) 547-9737
13:33
NO. 315
030
3.
Do you think homosexuals in the military should share the same sleeping and bath
facilities?
Yes:
2
3.51%
No:
53
92.98%
No Opinion:
2
3.51%
4.
Do you think young people will be more or less likely to join the military if they have
to share the same facilities with homosexuals?
More Likely:
0
0.0%
Less Likely:
56
98.25%
No Opinion:
1
1.75%
5.
Do you think homosexuals pose a health threat to the military?
Yes:
54
94.74%
No:
3
5.26%
No Opinion:
0
0.0%
6.
Based on your military experience, do you feel the presence of open homosexuals in the
military would:
A. Undermine soldier's morale?
Yes:
57
100.0%
No:
0
0.0%
No Opinion:
0
0.0%
B. Undermine the cohesiveness and readiness of a combat unit?
Yes:
57
100.0%
No:
0
0.0%
06/30/93
13:33
NO. 315
Q31
No Opinion:
0
0.0%
C. Deter some heterosexual males from joining the military?
Yes:
56
98.25%
No:
0
0.0%
No Opinion:
1
1.75%
D. Lead to large numbers of heterosexual soldiers seeking discharges?
Yes:
38
66.67%
No:
15
26.32%
No Opinion:
4
7.02%
7.
If one of the soldiers under your command were an openly practicing homosexual, do
you think you could give a fair performance evaluation of that soldier?
Yes:
26
45.61%
No:
12
21.05%
No Opinion:
19
33.33%
8.
If the situation were reversed and one of your commanding officers were an openly
practicing homosexual, do you think you would receive a fair performance evaluation?
Yes:
5
8.77%
No:
37
64.91%
No Opinion:
15
26.32%
9.
Do you support the ban on homosexuals in the military?
Yes:
57
100.0%
No:
0
0.0%
No Opinion:
0
0.0%
06/30/93
13:34
NO. 315
932
DEPARTMENT SECURITY COUNCIL
KOUNDAILON
NET
AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL FOUNDATION
CONFIDENTIAL SURVEY OF 1,040 ACTIVE DUTY
U.S. FLAG AND GENERAL OFFICERS
SPONSORED BY
THE MILITARY PERSONNEL TASK FORCE
OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN RESEARCH COMMITTEE
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FROM THE U.S. ARMY
BY THE
AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL FOUNDATION
DATES: JUNE 7-21, 1993
NUMBER RESPONDING: 232
1.
General Colin Powell has said that allowing homosexuals in the military would be
"prejudicial to good order and discipline." Do you agree with this statement?
Yes:
227
97.84%
No:
5
2.16%
No Opinion:
0
0.0%
2.
Do you view the issue of gays in the military as one of civil rights or of national
security?
Civil Rights:
10
4.31%
National Security:
210
90.52%
No Opinion:
5
2.16%
Other:
7
3.02%
1155 15th Street N.W., Suite 1101
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 484-1676 FAX: (202) 296-9547
Washington Communications Center
Boston, Virginia 22713
(703) 547-1776 FAX: (703) 547-9737
06/30/93
13:34
NO. 315
933
3.
Do you think homosexuals in the military should share the same sleeping and bath
facilities?
Yes:
13
5.60%
No:
213
91.81%
No Opinion:
5
2.16%
Other:
1
0.43%
4.
Do you think young people will be more or less likely to join the military if they have
to share the same facilities with homosexuals?
More Likely:
0
0.0%
Less Likely:
229
98.71%
No Opinion:
2
0.86%
Other:
1
0.43%
5.
Do you think homosexuals pose a health threat to the military?
Yes:
196
84.48%
No:
20
8.62%
No Opinion:
15
6.47%
Other:
1
0.43%
6.
Based on your military experience, do you feel the presence of open homosexuals in the
military would:
A. Undermine soldier's morale?
Yes:
231
99.57%
No:
0
0.0%
No Opinion:
1
0.43%
06/30/93
13:35
NO. 315
D34
B. Undermine the cohesiveness and readiness of a combat unit?
Yes:
231
99.57%
No:
1
0.43%
No Opinion:
0
0.0%
C. Deter some heterosexual males from joining the military?
Yes:
230
99.14%
No:
1
0.43%
No Opinion:
1
0.43%
D. Lead to large numbers of heterosexual soldiers seeking discharges?
Yes:
138
59.48%
No:
63
27.16%
No Opinion:
28
12.07%
Other:
3
1.30%
7.
If one of the soldiers under your command were an openly practicing homosexual, do
you think you could give a fair performance evaluation of that soldier?
Yes:
138
59.48%
No:
73
31.47%
No Opinion:
17
7.32%
Other:
4
1.72%
8.
If the situation were reversed and one of your commanding officers were an openly
practicing homosexual, do you think you would receive a fair performance evaluation?
Yes:
67
28.88%
No:
102
43.97%
06/30/93
13:35
NO. 315
935
No Opinion:
60
25.86%
Other:
3
1.30%
9.
Do you support the ban on homosexuals in the military?
Yes:
227
97.84%
No:
4
1.72%
No Opinion:
1
0.43%