[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 29, Number 29 (Monday, July 26, 1993)]
[Pages 1369-1373]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks Announcing the New Policy on Gays and Lesbians 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.

[[Page 1370]]

    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 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.

[[Page 1371]]

    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, 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

[[Page 1372]]

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 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

[[Page 1373]]

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.