    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book I)]
    [July 19, 1993]
    [Pages 1109-1112]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks Announcing the New Policy on Homosexuals in the Military
    July 19, 1993

        Thank you very much. Secretary Aspin, General Powell, members of the
    Joint Chiefs, Admiral Kime, to our host, Admiral Smith, ladies and
    gentlemen, I have come here today to discuss a difficult challenge and
    one which has received an enormous amount of publicity and public and
    private debate over the last several months: our Nation's policy toward
    homosexuals in the military.
        I believe the policy I am announcing today represents a real step
    forward, but I know it will raise concerns in some of your minds. So I
    wanted you to hear my thinking and my decision directly and in person
    because I respect you, and because you are among the elite who will lead
    our Armed Forces into the next century, and because you will have to put
    this policy into effect and I expect your help in doing it.
        The policy I am announcing today is, in my judgment, the right thing
    to do and the best way to do it. It is right because it provides greater
    protection to those who happen to be homosexual and want to serve their
    country honorably in uniform, obeying all the military's rules against
    sexual misconduct. It is the best way to proceed because it provides a
    sensible balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of
    our military to remain the world's number one fighting force. As
    President of all the American people, I am pledged to protect and to
    promote individual rights. As Commander in Chief, I am pledged to
    protect and advance our security. In this policy, I believe we have come
    close to meeting both objectives.
        Let me start with this clear fact: Our military is one of our
    greatest accomplishments and our most valuable assets. It is the world's
    most effective and powerful fighting force, bar none. I have seen proof
    of this fact almost every day since I became President. I saw it last
    week when I visited Camp Casey, along the DMZ in Korea. I witnessed it
    at our military academies at Annapolis and West Point when I visited
    there. And I certainly relied on it 3 weeks ago when I ordered an attack
    on Iraq after that country's leadership attempted to assassinate
    President Bush.
        We owe a great deal to the men and women who protect us through
    their service, their sacrifice, and their dedication. And we owe it to
    our own security to listen hard to them and act carefully as we consider
    any changes in the military. A force ready to fight must maintain the
    highest priority under all circumstances.
        Let me review the events which bring us here today. Before I ran for
    President, this issue was already upon us. Some of the members of the
    military returning from the Gulf war announced their homosexuality in
    order to protest the ban. The military's policy has been questioned in
    college ROTC programs. Legal challenges have been filed in court,
    including one that has since succeeded. In 1991, the Secretary of
    Defense, Dick Cheney, was asked about reports that the Defense
    Department spent an alleged $500 million to separate and replace about
    17,000 homosexuals from the military service during the 1980's, in spite
    of the findings of a Government report saying there was no reason to
    believe that they could not serve effectively and with distinction.
    Shortly thereafter, while giving a speech at the Kennedy School of
    Government at Harvard, I was asked by one of the students what I thought
    of this report and what I thought

    [[Page 1110]]

    of lifting the ban. This question had never before been presented to me,
    and I had never had the opportunity to discuss it with anyone. I stated
    then what I still believe, that I thought there ought to be a
    presumption that people who wish to do so should be able to serve their
    country if they are willing to conform to the high standards of the
    military and that the emphasis should be always on people's conduct, not
    their status.
        For me, and this is very important, this issue has never been one of
    group rights but rather of individual ones, of the individual
    opportunity to serve and the individual responsibility to conform to the
    highest standards of military conduct. For people who are willing to
    play by the rules, able to serve and make a contribution, I believed
    then and I believe now we should give them the chance to do so.
        The central facts of this issue are not much in dispute. First,
    notwithstanding the ban, there have been and are homosexuals in the
    military service who serve with distinction. I have had the privilege of
    meeting some of these men and women, and I have been deeply impressed by
    their devotion to duty and to country.
        Second, there is no study showing them to be less capable or more
    prone to misconduct than heterosexual soldiers. Indeed, all the
    information we have indicates that they are not less capable or more
    prone to misbehavior.
        Third, misconduct is already covered by the laws and rules which
    also cover activities that are improper by heterosexual members of the
    military.
        Fourth, the ban has been lifted in other nations and in police and
    fire departments in our country with no discernible negative impact on
    unit cohesion or capacity to do the job, though there is admittedly no
    absolute analogy to the situation we face and no study bearing on this
    specific issue.
        Fifth, even if the ban were lifted entirely, the experience of other
    nations and police and fire departments in the United States indicates
    that most homosexuals would probably not declare their sexual
    orientation openly, thereby making an already hard life even more
    difficult in some circumstances.
        But as the sociologist Charles Moskos noted after spending many
    years studying the American military, the issue may be tougher to
    resolve here in the United States than in Canada, Australia, and in some
    other nations because of the presence in our country of both vocal gay
    rights groups and equally vocal antigay rights groups, including some
    religious groups who believe that lifting the ban amounts to endorsing a
    lifestyle they strongly disapprove of.
        Clearly the American people are deeply divided on this issue, with
    most military people opposed to lifting the ban because of the feared
    impact on unit cohesion, rooted in disapproval of homosexual lifestyles
    and the fear of invasion of privacy of heterosexual soldiers who must
    live and work in close quarters with homosexual military people.
    However, those who have studied this issue extensively have discovered
    an interesting fact. People in this country who are aware of having
    known homosexuals are far more likely to support lifting the ban. In
    other words, they are likely to see this issue in terms of individual
    conduct and individual capacity instead of the claims of a group with
    which they do not agree and also to be able to imagine how this ban
    could be lifted without a destructive impact on group cohesion and
    morale.
        Shortly after I took office and reaffirmed my position, the foes of
    lifting the ban in the Congress moved to enshrine the ban in law. I
    asked that congressional action be delayed for 6 months while the
    Secretary of Defense worked with the Joint Chiefs to come up with a
    proposal for changing our current policy. I then met with the Joint
    Chiefs to hear their concerns and asked them to try to work through the
    issue with Secretary Aspin. I wanted to handle the matter in this way on
    grounds of both principle and practicality.
        As a matter of principle, it is my duty as Commander in Chief to
    uphold the high standards of combat readiness and unit cohesion of the
    world's finest fighting force, while doing my duty as President to
    protect the rights of individual Americans and to put to use the
    abilities of all the American people. And I was determined to serve this
    principle as fully as possible through practical action, knowing this
    fact about our system of government: While the Commander in Chief and
    the Secretary of Defense can change military personnel policies,
    Congress can reverse those changes by law in ways that are difficult, if
    not impossible, to veto.
        For months now, the Secretary of Defense and the Service Chiefs have
    worked through this issue in a highly charged, deeply emotional
    environment, struggling to come to terms with the competing
    consideration and pressures and,

    [[Page 1111]]

    frankly, to work through their own ideas and deep feelings.
        During this time many dedicated Americans have come forward to state
    their own views on this issue. Most, but not all, of the military
    testimony has been against lifting the ban. But support for changing the
    policy has come from distinguished combat veterans, including Senators
    Bob Kerrey, Chuck Robb, and John Kerry in the United States Congress. It
    has come from Lawrence Korb, who enforced the gay ban during the Reagan
    administration, and from former Senator Barry Goldwater, a distinguished
    veteran, former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, founder
    of the Arizona National Guard, and patron saint of the conservative wing
    of the Republican Party.
        Senator Goldwater's statement, published in the Washington Post
    recently, made it crystal clear that when this matter is viewed as an
    issue of individual opportunity and responsibility rather than one of
    alleged group rights, this is not a call for cultural license but rather
    a reaffirmation of the American value of extending opportunity to
    responsible individuals and of limiting the role of Government over
    citizens' private lives.
        On the other hand, those who oppose lifting the ban are clearly
    focused not on the conduct of individual gay service members but on how
    nongay service members feel about gays in general and in particular
    those in the military service.
        These past few days I have been in contact with the Secretary of
    Defense as he has worked through the final stages of this policy with
    the Joint Chiefs. We now have a policy that is a substantial advance
    over the one in place when I took office. I have ordered Secretary Aspin
    to issue a directive consisting of these essential elements: One,
    service men and women will be judged based on their conduct, not their
    sexual orientation. Two, therefore the practice, now 6 months old, of
    not asking about sexual orientation in the enlistment procedure will
    continue. Three, an open statement by a service member that he or she is
    a homosexual will create a rebuttable presumption that he or she intends
    to engage in prohibited conduct, but the service member will be given an
    opportunity to refute that presumption; in other words, to demonstrate
    that he or she intends to live by the rules of conduct that apply in the
    military service. And four, all provisions of the Uniform Code of
    Military Justice will be enforced in an even-handed manner as regards
    both heterosexuals and homosexuals. And thanks to the policy provisions
    agreed to by the Joint Chiefs, there will be a decent regard to the
    legitimate privacy and associational rights of all service members.
        Just as is the case under current policy, unacceptable conduct,
    either heterosexual or homosexual, will be unacceptable 24 hours a day,
    7 days a week from the time a recruit joins the service until the day he
    or she is discharged. Now, as in the past, every member of our military
    will be required to comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
    which is Federal law, and military regulations at all times and in all
    places.
        Let me say a few words now about this policy. It is not a perfect
    solution. It is not identical with some of my own goals. And it
    certainly will not please everyone, perhaps not anyone, and clearly not
    those who hold the most adamant opinions on either side of this issue.
        But those who wish to ignore the issue must understand that it is
    already tearing at the cohesion of the military and it is today being
    considered by the Federal courts in ways that may not be to the liking
    of those who oppose any change. And those who want the ban to be lifted
    completely on both status and conduct must understand that such action
    would have faced certain and decisive reversal by the Congress and the
    cause for which many have fought for years would be delayed, probably
    for years.
        Thus, on grounds of both principle and practicality, this is a major
    step forward. It is, in my judgment, consistent with my responsibilities
    as President and Commander in Chief to meet the need to change current
    policy. It is an honorable compromise that advances the cause of people
    who are called to serve our country by their patriotism, the cause of
    our national security, and our national interest in resolving an issue
    that has divided our military and our Nation and diverted our attention
    from other matters for too long.
        The time has come for us to move forward. As your Commander in
    Chief, I charge all of you to carry out this policy with fairness, with
    balance, and with due regard for the privacy of individuals. We must and
    will protect unit cohesion and troop morale. We must and will continue
    to have the best fighting force in the world. But this is an end to
    witch hunts that

    [[Page 1112]]

    spend millions of taxpayer dollars to ferret out individuals who have
    served their country well. Improper conduct, on or off base, should
    remain grounds for discharge. But we will proceed with an even hand
    against everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
        Such controversies as this have divided us before. But our Nation
    and our military have always risen to the challenge before. That was
    true of racial integration of the military and changes in the role of
    women in the military. Each of these was an issue, because it was an
    issue for society as well as for the military. And in each case our
    military was a leader in figuring out how to respond most effectively.
        In the early 1970's, when President Nixon decided to transform our
    military into an all-volunteer force, many argued that it could not
    work. They said it would ruin our forces. But the leaders of our
    military not only made it work, they used the concept of an all-
    volunteer force to build the very finest fighting force our Nation and
    the world have ever known.
        Ultimately, the success of this policy will depend in large measure
    on the commitment it receives from the leaders of the military services.
    I very much respect and commend the Joint Chiefs for the good-faith
    effort they have made through this whole endeavor. And I thank General
    Powell, the Joint Chiefs, and the Commandant of the Coast Guard for
    joining me here today and for their support of this policy.
        I would also like to thank those who lobbied aggressively in behalf
    of changing the policy, including Congressman Barney Frank; Congressman
    Gerry Studds; and the Campaign for Military Service, who worked with us
    and who clearly will not agree with every aspect of the policy announced
    today, but who should take some solace in knowing that their efforts
    have helped to produce a strong advance for the cause they seek to
    serve.
        I must now look to General Powell, to the Joint Chiefs, to all the
    other leaders in our military to carry out this policy through effective
    training and leadership. Every officer will be expected to exert the
    necessary effort to make this policy work. That has been the key every
    time the military has successfully addressed a new challenge, and it
    will be key in this effort, too.
        Our military is a conservative institution, and I say that in the
    very best sense, for its purpose is to conserve the fighting spirit of
    our troops, to conserve the resources and the capacity of our troops, to
    conserve the military lessons acquired during our Nation's existence, to
    conserve our very security, and yes, to conserve the liberties of the
    American people. Because it is a conservative institution, it is right
    for the military to be wary of sudden changes. Because it is an
    institution that embodies the best of America and must reflect the
    society in which it operates, it is also right for the military to make
    changes when the time for change is at hand.
        I strongly believe that our military, like our society, needs the
    talents of every person who wants to make a contribution and who is
    ready to live by the rules. That is the heart of the policy that I have
    announced today. I hope in your heart you will find the will and the
    desire to support it and to lead our military in incorporating it into
    our Nation's great asset and the world's best fighting force.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President spoke at 2:36 p.m. at the National Defense
    University at Fort McNair.