Inherent Illogic of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

Thanks to the Navy, the utter vacuity of the new “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexuals in the military is now apparent for all to see. A few days ago, naval boards of inquiry recommended cashiering two officers and an enlisted man who declared their homosexuality. The most notable was Lt. Tracy W. Thorne. The Navy did not ask, but he told--in a big way, on the national ABC “Nightline” show. So now this 27-year-old bombardier with an excellent military record is suddenly considered unfit for service. He plans to appeal to federal court.

Now the Clinton Administration is in the awkward position of having to tell judges that homosexuals should be dismissed--the exact opposite of Clinton’s campaign pledge to abolish the ban. This absurd position was a predictable result of the commander in chief’s caving in to the military brass and congressional doubters.

Under this policy, homosexual orientation per se is not a bar to service. But disclosing one’s homosexuality is considered presumptive evidence of a “propensity” for homosexual conduct, which is grounds for dismissal. It is on this slippery slope of vague legalisms that gay service people are supposed to conduct their daily lives. In essence, then, “don’t ask, don’t tell” means no change from the old policy. And indeed, many military commanders are proving themselves just as ruthless as ever in cleansing the ranks of gay and lesbian members.

The courts have traditionally deferred to the military in such matters. But that is changing. Federal District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. of Los Angeles has ordered the Navy to retain Petty Officer V. Keith Meinhold; the government appealed and a ruling is expected soon from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In Seattle last month, Federal District Judge Thomas S. Zilly, a Reagan appointee, ordered the National Guard to reinstate Col. Margarethe Cammermeyer, a highly decorated nurse.

Last November, a three-judge appeals panel in Washington ruled that the Naval Academy had unconstitutionally denied a commission to Midshipman Joseph C. Steffan; in May the full 11-judge bench heard the case. And in April, six gay service people mounted the first outright challenge to the new Clinton policy in Federal court in Brooklyn and won an initial victory from Judge Eugene H. Nickerson, who issued a preliminary injunction forbidding the military from discharging or investigating the six while the suit was pending.

In this and other cases, the gay sailors and soldiers continue to serve without any apparent deterioration of unit morale and cohesion, the chief reason given for barring homosexuals. It is now more likely than ever that the issue will be appealed to the Supreme Court. We hope that the court will have the courage that President Clinton lacked and bring an end to this absurd policy that both caters to base prejudices and denies the United States the services of many capable and loyal citizens.