
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, March 31, 1993                   TAG: 9303310326
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A7   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

A MATTER OF SECURITY, NOT RIGHTS NO COMPROMISE ON GAYS IN MILITARY

PRESIDENT CLINTON has begun to retreat from his position that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military. At his first formal news conference last week, Clinton said for the first time that he would consider proposals to segregate troops according to their sexual orientation.

During the campaign, Clinton unequivocally promised an end to the ban on homosexuals in the military. He then entertained no exceptions, saying that people should be judged not on who they are, but on what they do, as if sex drive and sexual expression of that drive can be separated.

Now he says there is the possibility that homosexuals might not be allowed to perform certain military tasks. This opens up the possibility that heterosexual troops could be discriminated against because, let's say, some homosexuals might be assigned to cushy desk jobs while their heterosexual comrades would be forced into combat duty or shipped out to sea for extended periods.

Such discrimination is bound to destroy the cohesiveness that is critical to any nation's fighting force. It is clear there can be no compromises on this issue. Either the ban will be dropped or it will be maintained.

Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., a member of the Armed Services Committee and leading GOP opponent of dropping the ban on homosexuals in the military, says it is up to Clinton "to prove to the nation that increased sexual tension in military units will not undermine their effectiveness. He must make that case against the best advice of his own military commanders and experts."

That advice apparently is getting through to Clinton. His first visit to a warship, the carrier Theodore Roosevelt, allowed him to see the triple-decker berths in which the crew must sleep and the incredibly close quarters in which sailors must work and live while at sea.

One of the principal arguments by the gay rights lobby and by Clinton (until his news conference) has been that homosexuals can control their behavior and should not be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. It is fair to ask whether we should expect young men who are sexually attracted to other young men to control their urges.

Now in the military, we segregate men from women not only for privacy considerations but also for reasons of sexual attraction that might prompt unwelcome advances or comments. And while we now have separate sleeping and showering facilities for men and women in the military, will additional sleeping and showering facilities be built for homosexuals? Will a gay man and lesbian woman be allowed to sleep and shower in the same quarters or will they need separate facilities, too?

That might total four separate facilities (straight men, gay men, straight women, gay women) - and what do we do about bisexuals? Would they have to sleep and shower alone?

If the military ban on homosexuals is lifted, there have been warnings that many experienced officers and enlisted personnel would resign in protest. There have been suggestions that the all-volunteer military would no longer attract recruits and cease to exist. That might mean the draft would have to be reinstated.

Wouldn't it be ironic if a president who did all he could to avoid the draft and military service were forced to bring back the draft because of disastrous policies of his own making? What kind of example would the president be to someone who was then drafted but declined to go on moral grounds?

As Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., conducts hearings this week on whether the ban should be lifted, this should not be a debate about politics or "rights" or pleasing a tiny, but vocal, lobby. It should be a debate over the national security of the United States and the means by which we protect the lives of the men and women who are put in harm's way and ensure that their mis- sions will be successfully completed.

The Cold War may be over, but as events in Russia, North Korea and the Middle East demonstrate, these remain unstable times.

It is troubling that those who did not serve in the military and, in fact, are on record as disliking the institution intensely, now want to transform it. First by too-steep cuts in the budget, and then by approving a type of behavior that would likely destroy the military from within, something no foreign enemy has been able to do. Los Angeles Times Syndicate

by CNB