During Debate on Gays in Military, the Kids Are Listening

Student leaders at Washington state’s Bremerton High School recently made what they saw as a logical and righteous move. They don’t like homosexuality. They think it’s wrong; they think it’s queer.

So “to preserve the integrity and high moral standards” of Bremerton High, they voted 49-47 to change their school constitution, as a precautionary measure in these tumultuous times.

Anyone who’s “openly gay” can’t be a student leader, their amendment read.

The president of the school’s Young Republicans Club addressed the student council to support the measure from the Right Side. “On a Mission From God,” his T-shirt read.

But, alas, the entire student body later voted against the amendment, 635 to 475. The school principal said she would have vetoed it if the students had not done it themselves. Everybody, meantime, was said to be astounded that the issue would bring Bremerton its 15 minutes of fame.

Still, for us outsiders, news reports explained why homosexuality is a big deal in Bremerton, just across Puget Sound from Seattle, a Navy town. About a third of the students come from military families, the reports said. This is shorthand that, by now, most everybody understands.

Put another way, it’s a situation where the trickle-down theory actually works. Bigotry is bred in the home.

All sorts of arguments against civil rights for gays and lesbians have been making the rounds these days, some of them narrow (too expensive) and others broad (way too weird). But it’s the military that’s been screaming the loudest, before Congress, in the media and among themselves.

(I won’t rehash all the objections to lifting the ban on gays in the military other than to say that the macho’s fear of being “mentally undressed” remains a particular favorite of mine.)

But the latest developments boil down to this. It looks like President Clinton’s vow to lift the ban isn’t going to find enough favor on Capitol Hill.

Compromises are being floated; probable votes are being tallied, and so-called hard-liners on both ends are complaining of principles being lost. Even though the fat lady has yet to sing.

At any rate, the varied interpretations of the new and politically correct term “openly gay” appear to be key.

How open is “open” in the military? Well, now, that depends. And is gay how you identify yourself, or does it signal who shares your bed? Uh, ditto the above.

If you think that this is doublespeak and double standard, then maybe you had better forget about a military career. I will try to explain.

Defense Department regulations currently say that two soldiers found to have engaged in homosexual sex may be exonerated, so long as they say that they are not really gay . In this case, some suggested lines of defense might be, “Sorry, sir. The devil made me do it.” Or, “There’s a war on.” Or, failing that, “There could be a war on.”

Regardless, every red-blooded American (allegedly straight) man, and to a lesser extent, woman, may be excused for a “lapse.” But gay and lesbian soldiers are discharged just for identifying themselves as such.

(And you want to get them really mad? Try outing yourself on the evening news).

President Clinton, for starters, doesn’t think that any of this is right, or makes much sense. He says gays and lesbians have always served in the military and that it’s time to allow them to stop lying about who they are.

He says conduct, not sexual orientation, should be what determines whether a soldier is fit to serve. He says that good soldiers can come in any color, may be women or men, gay or straight. Same goes for the bad ones.

Which is apparently too radical a concept for many on Capitol Hill.

(Although an ABC News poll in late April showed that 54% of the respondents believed gays should serve in the military and 44% thought not. ABC asked the same question in January, and opinion split 47% to 47%).

So one of the “compromises” to this dilemma, proposed by Sen. Sam Nunn, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is what has become known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.” This means the military will not ask recruits about their sexual orientation, and soldiers can’t tell anybody about it. That is, as long as it’s homosexual orientation we’re talking about.

Heterosexuals, in that time honored military tradition, can blab all they want.

Oh, and heterosexuals wouldn’t be discharged for, say, holding hands in the privacy of their home. But apparently due to issues of national security, under those same conditions, two soldiers of the same sex would be kicked out fast.

Rep. Barney Frank, who happens to be openly gay, says his compromise is more along the lines of “don’t ask, don’t tell and don’t listen and don’t investigate. . . . Basically, the policy is ‘don’t start, don’t get into the whole thing.’ ”

Frank’s proposal would nix the penalty for hand-holding off-base but keep it intact while on the job. He says his plan is admittedly half a loaf, but the alternative could be a statutory enforcement of the ban.

So, as you can see, this is very serious business that our leaders are debating with vigor and concern. Hand-holding, dancing at the officers’ club, the right of straight soldiers to pretend they are drag queens in the spirit of camaraderie and fun. . . .

But I remain optimistic. Years from now (how many, who can say?) we will look back on all this and shake our heads. We will say, “Thank God, we’ve grown up. We are now a nation that respects people’s differences. We all try to get along.”

Because reading the news from 1993, you’d think our national leaders were a bunch of adolescents, the way they’re carrying on.

At least at Bremerton High, that’s a more plausible excuse.