FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL ARGUES TO UPHOLD 1993 LAW ON HOMOSEXUALS IN THE MILITARY

                           Thomasson v. Perry
              Heard in U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit

WASHINGTON, Dec. 5, 1995 -- Family Research Council presents oral arguments 
today in a landmark case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit will 
consider the constitutionality of the Clinton Administration's homosexual 
policy as an interpretation of the 1993 law passed by Congress excluding 
homosexuals from military service.  FRC Attorney Melissa Wells-Petry, former 
Army lawyer who has litigated the military's ban on homosexuals for years, 
submitted friend-of-the-court arguments to the effect that the dismissal from 
the Navy of Lt. Paul G. Thomasson, a self-identified homosexual, should be 
upheld.

Technically, FRC and the Clinton Justice Department will be on the same side 
of this case, however their arguments differ greatly.  The Justice Department 
opposes FRC's arguments, based on the intent of the law passed by Congress, 
and submitted a brief attacking their participation.  The Justice Department 
rests their case on, and as their brief states, has a "paramount interest in 
defending the validity of Directives" issued to implement the law.

Family Research Council analyst Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis says the recent 
opposition indicates that "the Justice Department's primary motive is to 
uphold Clinton's promise to the homosexual community rather than to defend a 
law in the military's best interests."

"We hope the court will declare the regulations unconstitutional and sustain 
the law of the land," Maginnis said.  "It would be a tremendous act on behalf 
of the men and women who put their lives on the line for their nation daily.  
They deserve to serve in an environment that does not put them in 
unnecessarily intimate and intrusive circumstances."

Maginnis anticipates the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to refer the case to the 
Supreme Court.