Bush, Perot Face Increasing Pressure on Issue of Homosexuality By Ann Devroy and Michael Isikoff Washington Post Staff Writer President Bush is being pressured by some elements of his conservative Christian coalition to more directly attack homosexuality as part of a broader effort to put the Republicans on the side of "traditional family values" in the 1992 campaign. The pressure on Bush comes as Ross Perot, an undeclared independent candidate for the presidency, appears to be shifting his position on homosexuality to one more in line with that of Democratic candidate Gov. Bill Clinton and at odds with that of the GOP. After a lengthy and sometimes emotional meeting with gay rights leaders this week, Perot agreed to issue a formal statement condemning discrimination based on sexual orientation, according to a campaign official and two activists who attended the meeting. The scope of the anticipated statement from Perot was uncertain yesterday. Perot has been under intense fire from gay rights groups since late May when, during an interview with Barbara Walters for ABC's "20/20" show, he said he thought it would be "very difficult" to appoint a homosexual to a top Cabinet position because "it will distract from the work to be done." Asked directly by Walters whether he would permit gays in the military, Perot responded: "I don't think that's realistic." The activity in the Bush and Perot camps - and Clinton's strong support for gay rights - gives the issue new prominence in the presidential campaign. "I was very, very encouraged," said Mike Grossman, a Dallas Realtor and co-chairman of the Human Rights Campaign Fund, one of the country's largest gay rights lobbies, who attended the meeting with Perot. "I guess I feel almost a sense of accomplishment on behalf our our movement to even get one presidential candidate (Clinton) to be sympathetic to our issues. But to have two, it sure is a lot of what we've dreamed and hoped for for many years." On the other side, some Christian groups, who represent a key coalition in the Republican electoral strategy, call homosexuality more important to them than abortion, and some are using the issue to raise money and energize their contributors this year. At least three Christian groups have written to the White House complaining about Bush's answer last month to an interviewer's question about whether he would "knowingly" have a homosexual in his Cabinet and to urge him to more explicitly criticize homosexuality. Among other actions, they are asking Bush to issue an executive order on "traditional family values" and to make clear that homosexuality is a character flaw and a sin in the eye of Christians. Bush, in an interview with Walters, responded to a question about whether he would "knowingly" have homosexuals in his Cabinet by saying, "We have no litmus test on that question here, and there aren't going to be any. And I would say, how do I know?" Bush included in his answer a repetition of his support for a ban on homosexuals in the military. Richard D. Land, executive director of the Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, shot off a letter to Bush to express his "outrage and sense of betrayal" over that answer. In another letter, Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals said Bush's comments "taken at face value" lead "most evangelical Christians" to conclude that being homosexual would not disqualify a person for a Cabinet spot. The Rev. Lou Sheldon, president of the Traditional Values Coalition and a regular adviser to the Bush campaign on social issues, said the "no litmus test" answer was "a terrible blooper" that added to concerns among his member churches, many of them in California, that the president is not in tune with the depth of feeling among evangelical Christian groups. Learning yesterday that members of the Bush campaign had spoken to the Washington Blade, a gay weekly, produced new anguish for Sheldon. "I cannot believe that anyone with an understanding of the conservative Christian community would entertain any questions" from a homosexual publication, he said, adding that the issue of homosexuality "galvanizes our public more than right to life. It is absolutely a vital issue to Bible-believing Christians." A senior administration official said some "factions" of the conservative Christian coalition were upset with Bush's answer, as well as with the fact that homosexual activists had been invited twice to the White House for bill-signing ceremonies and had met with Bush's campaign chairman, Robert A. Mosbacher. The official cited a subsequent interview with the president in the New York Times, in which Bush said he "cannot accept as normal life style people of the same sex being parents. I'm very sorry. I don't accept that as normal." Robert Bray of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force said yesterday that Bush's comments on gay parents and his defense of the military ban "are, if anything, an intensification of an anti-gay stance. We are very concerned that Bush will make `queers' the new enemy, the new communists to run against." A senior official said that "the president is not about to do any sort of gay-bashing." Some of Bush's major supporters, however, are using what Bray calls "hate mail" on homosexuality to raise money. Beverley LaHaye, president of Concerned Women for America and a regular participant in White House meetings with conservatives, sent out a letter last month stating that the "homosexual movement poses the most serious threat" of all to American children. Perot's meeting with nine gay and lesbian rights activists was initiated by his campaign staff. As Perot listened attentively, three women who are lesbians told graphic, personal stories of having been victims of discrimination. Among them was a New York architect whose lover was killed in an alleged "hate crime" and an Army officer who was discharged just before an expected promotion to major after the military learned of her sexual orientation. When Los Angeles civil rights lawyer Gloria Allred read a suggested statement for Perot to deliver - condemining the military's policy of excluding homosexuals as "wasteful" and forswearing discrimnation against homosexuals "at all levels of government" - Perot, according to Allred, said he "would be willing to issue a statement of this nature as long as (people understood) it is not to get votes. . . . Anything that destroys other people's lives is wrong." Since his TV interview with Walters, Perot has said repeatedly that his remarks were misinterpreted and that his reluctance to appoint a homosexual to the Cabinet was only to spare the nominee from being "devastated" by grueling confirmation hearings. Although Perot had pledged to get back to the group by yesterday with his own formal statement on the issue, Tony Abate, executive assistant to Perot's senior campaign adviser, Mort Meyerson, said late yesterday, "We do not have a statement to issue at this time." Abate said that while a statement on homosexual rights had been drafted by the issues staff, Perot was busy in meetings with his national advisory council all day and wouldn't have a chance to review the statement until this morning. Abate confirmed that Perot's general position is that "he's opposed to discrimination in any way, shape or form," based on "race, creed, general or sexual discrimination. There are no caveats." In fact, Perot has been seeking to mollify critics in the gay community for weeks. After the firestorm over his initial comments in the Walters inteview, Perot met privately on June 18 in Irvine Calif., with a small group of lesbians, feminists and the publisher of the gay newspaper The Advocate. Allred, who attended that meeting, said Perot indicated that he would be willing to issue a "clarification" of his position and asked for proposed language.