BARNEY FRANK 558 Pleasant Street 4th District, Massachusetts Room 309 --- New Bedford, MA 02740 (508) 999-6462 2404 Rayburn Building Washington, DC 20515-2104 222 Milliken Place (202) 225-5931 Third Floor Fall River, MA 02721 29 Crafts Street (508) 674-3551 Newton, MA 02158 (617) 332-3920 89 Main Street Bridgewater, MA 02324 (508) 697-9403 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON, DC May 20, 1993 I am writing this to explain why I proposed a compromise on the question of the right of gay men and lesbians to serve in the military. For several years, I and other members of the gay and lesbian community have been working without exception to get the ban repealed. I have spent much of my time trying to persuade people in the gay and lesbian community and our allies that lobbying Members of Congress to support the President was our single biggest goal. Unfortunately with less than two months to go before congressional committees begin voting on this, I believe we have to face a stark fact: if the choice before the Congress is instant equality or a statute which enacts the complete ban into permanent law, Congress will choose the latter. Our lobbying efforts have not been nearly as successful as those of our opponents and time is running out. When Members get large amounts of mail and phone calls from particular groups of their constituents, they feel pressure to answer. What has happened over the past few months is that significant numbers of Members of Congress have committed themselves to oppose the total repeal of the ban which will mean voting for the ban. I felt we were heading towards a total statutory reimposition of the ban or an unacceptable compromise which would still leave gay men and lesbians in the military vulnerable to having their careers destroyed if they were seen, overheard or otherwise "discovered" while expressing their sexual orientation off duty and on their own time. My decision to move now to try to prevent this situation from hardening against us was triggered because we are about to run out of time and the issue was very close to locking in against us. It was for this reason that I decided to try to promote a compromise that would be far better than the very limited proposal known as "don't ask, don't tell", which proposal would have left gay men and lesbians totally unprotected for any activity they engaged in which expressed their sexual orientation on their own time, off base and off duty. I had four criteria in trying to find a compromise. First, I obviously wanted one that would give us the maximum of what we are trying to get, given that we cannot get 100%. Second, and equally important, it had to be one that could be sustained by a vote of both Houses of Congress. I have long ago lost my taste for glorious, principled defeat. I think it is my responsibility as an elected official to try to move our agenda forward. While it isn't always possible, I think it is irresponsible not to try. The third one is that we find a solution which has as its logical core a recognition that gay men and lesbians were not the problem, but that the problem we were dealing with had to do with prejudice from some of the straight majority. Finally, I wanted a compromise that would leave us in a position to make further improvements. The proposal I have advanced -- which is still unformed and needs to be flushed out in negotiations among various parties -- is the one that I think best meets these needs. What is says essentially is that the military will not ask people of their sexual orientation, will not investigate them for their sexual orientation, and will pay no attention to things that happen when people are off base, off duty and out of uniform which may express their sexual orientation. In return for this, the gay men and lesbians joining the military would have to accept a restriction on their ability to express their sexual orientation while on base, in uniform or on duty. I regret some restrictions, but I believe that providing gay and lesbian service members with freedom to express their sexual orientation while off duty is a considerable improvement over the situation that we would otherwise have. I should add explicitly that under my proposal, if someone were "reported" to the military commanders because he or she had been observed going to a gay bar, or because someone noted that he or she lived with a same sex lover, the response of the military would have to be "none of your business". that is, off base activities of gay men and lesbians would simply not be relevant to their careers. This is where the proposal "don't ask -- don't tell" proposal because under versions I have seen of that proposal, people who were seen going into a gay bar, or whose mail was read, or who are overheard talking on the phone, etc., etc., would be kicked out. In fact, until recently when a number of brave people volunteered their sexual orientation to help us in this fight, this is how the overwhelming majority of gay men and lesbians were in fact victimized. They were not people who on the whole made any declaration of their sexual orientation. They were people who were going about their business and who were spied upon on their own time, either by official investigative forces of the armed services, or by vengeful or nosy individuals. This practice would be banned. It is also important to note that the problem is not gay men and lesbians, but the prejudice they may encounter among some straight people. That is, accepting this proposal would mean acknowledging the fact that gay men and lesbians were perfectly qualified to serve in the military, and that people who serve in the military were entirely free on their own time to live the life of a gay man or a lesbian. It makes clear that the problem is that the military believes that some significant percentage of straight people would react in a disruptive fashion to the presence of gay men and lesbians. I think they have greatly exaggerated that, and I believe that experience will show that this is the case. But I also know as a fact that they have been sufficiently persuasive in their argument with a majority of my congressional colleagues and with large segments of the public so that we have no chance of defeating that outright. To some extent we are in the position that the Supreme court was in 1954 when it ruled unanimously that racial segregation was wrong, and that young black children were entitled to go to school with whites. But they also noted that the accumulated weight of white prejudice against blacks was so strong that it would not be possible to order immediate integration. This was a negative statement on the prejudiced state of mind of the white majority, not a negative comment on the black minority. I think a similar analysis applies here. I believe we can adopt a policy which would allow gay men and lesbians to serve, with some restriction on their personal freedom while they are on duty but with no restriction while they are off duty, and with the other non-gay related restrictions on those who choose to serve in the military. I also believe that this is a first step. My view is that if we had this situation, a certain percentage of straight people would soon figure out who was gay and lesbian, since people's private lives are not entirely secret from their colleagues. And I believe the result would be in the military as we have found it to be in civilian life, that as straight people have learned that friends and coworkers were gay and lesbian, they have easily adjusted. Thus, I believe that my proposal meets to the best that I can think of all of my criteria -- it gives us the greatest personal freedom that we are able to get for gay men and lesbians for the near term; it can pass the Congress; it is explicitly based on the assumption that the problem is not with gay men and lesbians but with the prejudice that exists against us in some elements of the straight community; and it offers us the basis for moving ahead. One other analogy seems relevant. Had we adopted the position of all or nothing with regard to women in the military, there would now be no women in the military, and none of the gains that women have made or are about to make in the military would be possible. I am strongly supportive of legislation that would remove the restrictions on what women are allowed to do in the military, and I believe that Secretary Aspin is going to move in that direction. Had women followed the advice that some in the gay community are giving -- that is either get it all or take nothing -- they would not be in the position as they now are to be about to be integrated more fully into the armed services. I believe my proposal offers us the best chance to do that, especially since under my proposal, there would be no statute locking in any particular set of rules, but rather a modified executive order. The alternative is a statute which takes the policy of total and complete exclusion with all of its negative symbolic, monetary, and practical implications and writes it into law. I cannot think of a worse outcome than that and it is this particular disaster that I am working hard to avoid. --- MEMORANDUM TO: Whom It May Concern FM: Barney Frank RE: Outline of proposed compromise regarding the right of gay men and lesbians to serve in the military. DA: May 20, 1993 -------------------------------------------------------------- I am proposing the following compromise. Obviously this is a proposition which needs to be made much more specific, and part of my reason for proposing it is to make sure that when a compromise proposal is drafted, some of us who in fact prefer a total lifting of the ban are in on that drafting. It is in the course of these negotiations that I hope we can fill in some of the specifics. The essential position is to draw a distinction between what people are legally entitled to do when they are on base, on duty or in uniform, and what they can do when they are off duty, and on their own time and in non-military installations. Under my proposal, gay men and lesbians who are off duty, not in military installations and in civilian clothes would be allowed to act as any other gay or lesbian member of society. They could socialize, enjoy a relationship, etc., without this having any potential negative legal effect on their service. In fact, such a rule would have protected the vast majority of lesbians and gay men who have been victimized by being kicked out of the military in the past. That is, historically very few people have volunteered their sexual orientation to their superior officers or to the bulk of their fellow enlisted women and men. People have been kicked out because they were spied upon, because phone conversations were overheard, because people saw them going into places which revealed -- or at least indicated their sexual orientation. In all cases these things were reported to superior officers who then acted to kick people out. Under the proposal I am making, this would not be allowed to happen. If someone reported to a superior officer that someone had been seen off duty going into a gay bar, or had been seen with a person of the same sex at a movie theater in circumstances that suggested a relationship, or was seen dancing with someone of the same sex at a particular party, etc., etc., the legal effect of this would be zero. That is, the individual to whom this was reported would be required to say that this was irrelevant and it would have no effect on people's right to serve. The part of my proposal that is a compromise on our part is an acceptance of the restriction that currently exists against lesbians and gay men being explicit about their sexual orientation while they are on base, on duty, etc. This would restrict gay men and lesbians from engaging in behavior while on base, etc., which gave a clear indication of their sexual orientation. It would prohibit them from being public about their sexual orientation to their colleagues at large, their superior officers, etc. Off base and off duty, gay men and lesbians in the military would be free to act on their sexual orientation without fear that someone could report them and cause them to lose their careers. On duty they would be subject to essentially the same restrictions they are subjected to now. Thus, this does free only part of their lives, and is hardly the goal we would prefer if we had the votes to enact one. ======================================== Bryan J. Blumberg, The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation 815 Colorado Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90041-1777 (213) 259-4914, B_BLUMBERG@MACSCH.COM