Bill Clinton Press Conference on "Gays in the Military" (January 29, 1993)

[ProSense]

This was Clinton introducing the compromise that would lead to Don't Ask Don't Tell

Press Conference on "Gays in the Military" (January 29, 1993) Bill Clinton

President Bill Clinton addresses the press regarding his decision to lift the ban excluding homosexual individuals from military service. He argues that in the absence of any other disqualifying conduct, American citizens who wish to serve their country should be able to do so.

This transcript contains the published text of the speech, not the actual words spoken. There may be some differences between the transcript and the audio/video content.

<...>

Transcript

The President. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm sorry, we had a last-minute delay occasioned by another issue, not this one.

The debate over whether to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military has, to put it mildly, sparked a great deal of interest over the last few days. Today, as you know, I have reached an agreement, at least with Senator Nunn and Senator Mitchell, about how we will proceed in the next few days. But first I would like to explain what I believe about this issue and why, and what I have decided to do after a long conversation, and a very good one, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and discussions with several Members of Congress.

The issue is not whether there should be homosexuals in the military. Everyone concedes that there are. The issue is whether men and women who can and have served with real distinction should be excluded from military service solely on the basis of their status. And I believe they should not.

The principle on which I base this position is this: I believe that American citizens who want to serve their country should be able to do so unless their conduct disqualifies them from doing so. Military life is fundamentally different from civilian society; it necessarily has a different and stricter code of conduct, even a different code of justice. Nonetheless, individuals who are prepared to accept all necessary restrictions on their behavior, many of which would be intolerable in civilian society, should be able to serve their country honorably and well.

I have asked the Secretary of Defense to submit by July the 15th a draft Executive order, after full consultation with military and congressional leaders and concerned individuals outside of the Government, which would end the present policy of the exclusion from military service solely on the basis of sexual orientation and at the same time establish rigorous standards regarding sexual conduct to be applied to all military personnel.

This draft order will be accompanied by a study conducted during the next 6 months on the real, practical problems that would be involved in this revision of policy, so that we will have a practical, realistic approach consistent with the high standards of combat effectiveness and unit cohesion that our armed services must maintain. I agree with the Joint Chiefs that the highest standards of conduct must be required.

The change cannot and should not be accomplished overnight. It does require extensive consultation with the Joint Chiefs, experts in the Congress and in the legal community, joined by my administration and others. We've consulted closely to date and will do so in the future. During that process, interim measures will be placed into effect which, I hope, again, sharpen the focus of this debate. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have agreed to remove the question regarding one's sexual orientation from future versions of the enlistment application, and it will not be asked in the interim.

We also all agree that a very high standard of conduct can and must be applied. So the single area of disagreement is this: Should someone be able to serve their country in uniform if they say they are homosexuals, but they do nothing which violates the code of conduct or undermines unit cohesion or morale, apart from that statement? That is what all the furor of the last few days has been about. And the practical and not insignificant issues raised by that issue are what will be studied in the next 6 months.

Through this period ending July 15th, the Department of Justice will seek continuances in pending court cases involving reinstatement. And administrative separation under current Department of Defense policies based on status alone will be stayed pending completion of this review. The final discharge in cases based only on status will be suspended until the President has an opportunity to review and act upon the final recommendations of the Secretary of Defense with respect to the current policy. In the meantime, a member whose discharge has been suspended by the Attorney General will be separated from active duty and placed in standby reserve until the final report of the Secretary of Defense and the final action of the President. This is the agreement that I have reached with Senator Nunn and Senator Mitchell.

During this review process, I will work with the Congress. And I believe the compromise announced today by the Senators and by me shows that we can work together to end the gridlock that has plagued our city for too long.

This compromise is not everything I would have hoped for or everything that I have stood for, but it is plainly a substantial step in the right direction. And it will allow us to move forward on other terribly important issues affecting far more Americans.

My administration came to this city with a mission to bring critical issues of reform and renewal and economic revitalization to the public debate, issues that are central to the lives of all Americans. We are working on an economic reform agenda that will begin with an address to the joint session of Congress on February 17th. In the coming months the White House Task Force on Health Care, chaired by the First Lady, will complete work on a comprehensive health care reform proposal to be submitted to Congress within 100 days of the commencement of this administration. We will be designing a system of national service to begin a season of service in which our Nation's unmet needs are addressed and we provide more young people the opportunity to go to college. We will be proposing comprehensive welfare reform legislation and other important initiatives.

I applaud the work that has been done in the last 2 or 3 days by Senator Nunn, Senator Mitchell, and others to enable us to move forward on a principle that is important to me without shutting the Government down and running the risk of not even addressing the family and medical leave issue, which is so important to America's families, before Congress goes into its recess. I am looking forward to getting on with this issue over the next 6 months and with these other issues which were so central to the campaign and, far more importantly, are so important to the lives of all the American people.

Q. Mr. President, yesterday a Federal court in California said that the military ban on homosexuals was unconstitutional. Will you direct the Navy and the Justice Department not to appeal that decision? And how does that ruling strengthen your hand in this case?

The President. Well, it makes one point. I think it strengthens my hand, if you will, in two ways. One, I agree with the principle embodied in the case. I have not read the opinion, but as I understand it, the opinion draws the distinction that I seek to draw between conduct and status. And secondly, it makes the practical point I have been making all along, which is that there is not insignificant chance that this matter would ultimately be resolved in the courts in a way that would open admission into the military without the opportunity to deal with this whole range of practical issues, which everyone who has ever thought about it or talked it through concedes are there. So I think it can—it strengthens my hand on the principle as well as on the process.

more

[bluestateguy]

1. DADT made the problem worse not better

Discharges actually increased.

If Clinton was going to capitulate--and that's what he did--he could have at least done it the right way and just left the old policy in place, so that a future president (or even Clinton himself) could have Executive Ordered it away.

[dsc]

2. that is just plain, flat out, baldly, and utterly false

Gays were jailed, yes put in real, jails before DADT. Read Conduct Unbecoming if you don't believe me. It is just plain, flat out, fairy tale made up crack pot history, to state that being gay before DADT was better than after.

[ProSense]

3. No.

prior to DADT the witch hunts were bad, but the problem is that DADT didn't stop them. There were still members of the military being discharged dishonorably.

In fact, what should have happened is that all the challenges should have played out:

Q. Mr. President, yesterday a Federal court in California said that the military ban on homosexuals was unconstitutional. Will you direct the Navy and the Justice Department not to appeal that decision? And how does that ruling strengthen your hand in this case?

The President. Well, it makes one point. I think it strengthens my hand, if you will, in two ways. One, I agree with the principle embodied in the case. I have not read the opinion, but as I understand it, the opinion draws the distinction that I seek to draw between conduct and status. And secondly, it makes the practical point I have been making all along, which is that there is not insignificant chance that this matter would ultimately be resolved in the courts in a way that would open admission into the military without the opportunity to deal with this whole range of practical issues, which everyone who has ever thought about it or talked it through concedes are there. So I think it can—it strengthens my hand on the principle as well as on the process.

"It is just plain, flat out, fairy tale made up crack pot history, to state that being gay before DADT was better than after."

What is happening now is is not only the repeal of DADT, but what should have played out more than a decade ago: no DADT, and members of the military who are gay being allowed to serve openly with honor. This is a repeal of DADT that doesn't return to the pre-DADT policy.

[DURHAM D]

4. You have no clue what you are talking about.

[ProSense]

5. Actually,

I do. DADT was a mess that shouldn't have happened. The challenge to the constitutionality of the ban on gays in the military and facts should have been enough to smack down the nonsense spewed by Nunn.

A Retreat on Gay Soldiers

<...>

President Clinton was on the right track when he pledged during the campaign to lift the ban on gay service members. But once in office, Mr. Clinton erred by not lifting it with the stroke of a pen. Instead, after months of wrangling, the Administration issued a half-hearted policy on July 19 that left the ban in place but curbed the screening and investigations designed to ferret out homosexuals.

<...>

The whole purpose of the Senate bill is to exclude homosexuals because their presence would create an "unacceptable risk" to morale, discipline and unit cohesion. But it is shocking how little evidence supports that assertion. When challenged on the floor, Senator Nunn cited the predictable testimony of top generals. Their seasoned judgments deserve to be weighed -- but they may simply be reluctant to tackle a tough social issue.

The Rand report offers voluminous evidence that homosexuals and heterosexuals could indeed work together effectively. Its researchers visited foreign military establishments that welcome or tolerate homosexuals, including such capable armies as those of Israel, France and Canada; none thought their effectiveness had been reduced. The researchers visited police and fire departments where gay and heterosexual members put their lives at risk together; none reported a loss of effectiveness.

<...>

A pending defense bill has language identical to the Senate's, but more progressive members hope the Rules Committee will allow debate on an amendment that would leave policy on homosexuals in the military to the Administration. That is the best way to go. Cementing the Senate language into law will just make it harder to ease the ban as social attitudes become more enlightened.

Edited for clarity.

[dsc]

7. He couldn't just lift the policy unless every single gay person in the service

was going to remain celebate since the military sodomy law banned both giving and recieving oral or anal sex. And as to your other post I notice you refrained from discussing the fact that gays were being jailed prior to the policy. You do know what a jail is, right? Again read conduct unbecoming I am sure you can find it on Amazon for a good price. If not, pm me and I will sell you my second copy.

[ProSense]

8. What?

"He couldn't just lift the policy unless every single gay person in the service was going to remain celebate since the military sodomy law banned both giving and recieving oral or anal sex."

So Clinton promised to lift the policy, but couldn't because it was impossible? So why did he promise? This is simply claiming that it would be hard so DADT was the easy way out. He should have done it by executive order.

Also, DADT did not change what conduct the military considered illegal. In fact, Clinton states that in the OP. From the NYT 1993:

<...>

Under the new policy, the ban against homosexual conduct remains. A person can be a homosexual as long as he or she does not act like a homosexual or tell too many people. Recruits would not be asked if they are homosexuals, nor would anyone on active duty be officially asked. If asked, no answer would be required.

White House officials says that commanding officers could order investigations only if they have "credible evidence" that someone in the ranks has engaged in homosexual conduct. Sodomy would remain illegal. But a single hearsay report to an officer would not be enough to trigger an inquiry.

According to one White House aide, the policy "is going to discourage acting, practicing homosexuals from being in the military."

But the White House believes that, as one aide put it, "this will lead to significant advances for homosexuals in the military. It will clearly state that individuals cannot be asked about their sexual orientation nor will they be required to reveal it. It will clearly create, we believe, a zone of privacy in the military."

link

Seventeen years later, this was a policy that prolonged the injustice. It should never have happened.

[polmaven]

9. there is absolutely NO WAY

that what is happening now could possibly have taken place then. Even the public opinon was very low on allowing gays to serve openly. What President Clinton did was absolutely the best that could be done at the time, and it stopped the "gay hunts" and jail time for gay service members.

[ProSense]

10. Who said it could

or would have happened immediately? The fact is that had Clinton done this by executive order, the momentum to end the ban could have continued, and Clinton, with two terms ending in 2000, could have pushed it along even more. Instead, DADT followed by DOMA, made it impossible.

There was momemtum.

Q. Mr. President, yesterday a Federal court in California said that the military ban on homosexuals was unconstitutional. Will you direct the Navy and the Justice Department not to appeal that decision? And how does that ruling strengthen your hand in this case?

The President. Well, it makes one point. I think it strengthens my hand, if you will, in two ways. One, I agree with the principle embodied in the case. I have not read the opinion, but as I understand it, the opinion draws the distinction that I seek to draw between conduct and status. And secondly, it makes the practical point I have been making all along, which is that there is not insignificant chance that this matter would ultimately be resolved in the courts in a way that would open admission into the military without the opportunity to deal with this whole range of practical issues, which everyone who has ever thought about it or talked it through concedes are there. So I think it can—it strengthens my hand on the principle as well as on the process.

The Constitution, facts and time was on the right side. There was no need to enact this ridiculous policy.

Look at the harm it has done over the years.

[ClarkUSA]

11. Bubba could've have signed an executive order, if nothing else. Instead, he caved.

Attempts to justify Clinton's political cowardice on this issue are a lot of hooey. His DLC triangulation is obvious, which cumulated in his approval of and public defense of homophobic ads in 1996.

[vaberella]

6. dupe. n/t

[craigmatic]

12. DADT was intended to keep gays in the military but the conservatives in the military corrupted it

just like bush did every major government department. That seems to be the trend with repigs- the dems pass something with good intentions in mind then the repubs come along and use it for the opposite purpose for which it was intended.

[ClarkUSA]

13. I am so glad that Pres. Obama is not another slippery DLC triangulator like Bill Clinton.

Amongst his many other legislative accomplishments, President Obama has, against all odds, corrected the worst of Clinton's DLC Republican-lite cave-ins (DADT, deregulating Wall Street and the banking industry via the repeal of Glass-Steagall) and political malpractice (HCR).

This is CHANGE.

[DURHAM D]

14. You have absolutely no idea how gay and lesbian service members

will be treated going forward. Likely the same as last time as the military screwed around with the application of DADTDPDH. The prejudice remains in many quarters and the desire to punish/abuse remains within the institution.