[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 61 (Monday, April 3, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E758]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                       A VICTORY FOR COMMON SENSE

                                 ______


                          HON. GERRY E. STUDDS

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                          Monday, April 3, 1995
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, some 18 months ago this House enacted 
legislation to codify the so-called ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy 
barring gay and lesbian Americans from serving openly in the Armed 
Forces. The law thus placed on the statute books was an unprecedented 
exercise in overt, state-sanctioned discrimination. It was, from first 
to last, an irrational policy supported by nothing more than naked 
prejudice.
  I stated at the time that I did not believe such a policy could 
survive constitutional scrutiny, and that the day would come when the 
courts would say so. On Thursday, March 30, 1995, Federal District 
Judge Eugene H. Nickerson fulfilled that prediction. In a 39-page 
opinion that is a triumph of decency and common sense, Judge Nickerson 
ruled in favor of six service members who challenged this cruel and 
unjust policy.
  In striking down the law, the district court found it ``demeaning and 
unworthy of a great nation to base a policy on pretense rather than 
truth.'' It also accurately characterized the scholastic distinctions 
on which the law relies as ``Byzantine'' and ``Orwellian.''
  Since the decision was handed down, the court's conclusions have been 
echoed on editorial pages across the country. Few could surpass the 
editorial published on March 31, 1995 in the Cape Cod Times, which I am 
proud to insert in the Record.
                        A Richly Deserved Defeat

       It took a federal judge to tell President Clinton what a 
     great many people have known for years to be true--his 
     ``Don't ask, don't tell'' policy on gays in the military was 
     a compromise full of flaws right from the start. Basically, 
     the policy allows gays and lesbians to serve as long as they 
     don't admit their sexuality to anyone. If they do, they will 
     be handed an honorable discharge and booted through the gate.
       Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Eugene Nickerson ruled 
     that the policy is discriminatory, a violation of free speech 
     and it forces people to lie. In short, he said, the policy is 
     ``inherently deceptive.'' The ruling involves, and applies 
     to, only the six service personnel who filed the suit. The 
     Defense Department will appeal.
       This is the latest twist in a three-year debate that began 
     when then-candidate Clinton made a rock-solid promise that if 
     elected he would lift the ban entirely. That lit the fires, 
     and the waffling started.
       His first full year in office, 1993, was not a good one for 
     The Pledge or the president. In January, the Pentagon and its 
     supporters in Congress went on the offensive. The Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff met with the Commander in Chief behind closed 
     doors. When they emerged their only word was that it was a 
     ``constructive'' meeting.
       Two months later, in the semantic equivalent of jogging 
     backwards, Clinton told his first televised press conference 
     that he was now considering segregating homosexuals, which 
     surprised even the military. Clinton fumbled that one, 
     because it soon became clear he hadn't a clue as to how 
     segregation could be done or whether it would even work (it 
     wouldn't have--gays and lesbians aren't lepers).
       As was inevitable, the gays struck back in a most telling 
     manner. At the same time in May, 1993, that Sam Nunn, 
     chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was on the 
     road collecting comments from military and naval bases about 
     gays in the military, Sgt. Jose Zuniga, the Sixth Army's 1992 
     ``Soldier of the Year,'' was packing his bags at the Presidio 
     in San Francisco. The richly honored Sergeant Zuniga had 
     ``come out'' earlier in the month during a gay rights march 
     in Washington, D.C. He did so to prove to anyone who happened 
     to care that gays and lesbians can be as good servicemen and 
     women as any of their straight peers--and in Zuniga's case, 
     much better than most.
       The argument that Senator Nunn and so many others believe--
     homosexuals are a danger to morale, are incapable of doing 
     battle, are
      born molesters who can't resist putting the make on their 
     God-fearing mates in uniform and all the other stuff--is 
     dead wrong.
       Sergeant Zuniga, who could have stayed in the closet until 
     retirement and remained a role model for his troops, is proof 
     of that. So are two Medal of Honor recipients and an Army 
     nurse with the rank of colonel. She served with distinction 
     in Vietnam and has a medal to prove it, but she was later 
     cashiered by the National Guard stateside because of her 
     sexual orientation.
       So are many others, who fought in wars or served in peace, 
     all the while keeping their secret because of the fear of 
     discharge or worse, should the straights find out.
       One particularly egregious example of the mindset against 
     gays resulted from the April 1989 explosion inside a gun 
     turret aboard the battleship USS Iowa that killed 47 sailors. 
     Looking for somebody to blame, the Navy settled on a young 
     seaman who was killed, and put forth the story that he had 
     caused the blast because he had been jilted by one of the 
     victims.
       Better that, they reasoned, than the truth, which emerged 
     anyway, several months later: One of the propellant bags 
     contained unstable explosive that went off when it was shoved 
     into the breech. The story about the sailor was a crock, pure 
     and simple.
       As far back as October 1991, in a speech at Harvard, then-
     Governor Clinton made his position clear--at least, he 
     thought he did--on permitting homosexuals to serve as equals 
     in the military: It will be done. Thirteen months later came 
     slippage. The then-president-elect said he would form a group 
     to study the problem, ``but I am not going to change my mind 
     on it.'' So much for his pledge.
       The frustration among gays and their sense of having been 
     betrayed by the president is understandable. There is so much 
     anger against them from society in general and the military 
     in particular that it's truly a wonder that any of their 
     orientation even dare enter the services.
       But the fear of gays is largely based on an ignorance that 
     breeds intolerance and is to be found not only in government 
     institutions but among religious conservatives, who have 
     become a political force now and will certainly have an 
     effect in the 1996 elections.
       Judge Nickerson's ruling is a victory for gays and common 
     sense, though in context of the war over equality, this--
     alas--was but a skirmish.
   Mr. Chairman, the six plaintiffs and their attorneys have won an 
important victory, not only for themselves but for all who have served 
and still serve with honor and distinction. It is a victory shared most 
of all by those who challenged earlier versions of the ban in years 
past only to have their pleas fall on deaf ears.
  I fully expect that the Government will appeal this decision, and 
that the constitutionality of the ban will ultimately be revisited by 
higher courts. But whatever may happen in the months to come, today's 
ruling is the beginning of the end for a policy that is unworthy of our 
country and the brave service members who offer their lives in its 
service.


                          ____________________