By Robert Burns
Associated Press National Security Writer
WASHINGTON — A cultural shift in the 17 years since Congress passed a legal ban on gays serving openly in the military had changed the debate even before it was reopened by President Barack Obama.
Colin Powell, for example, who as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1993 was part of the opposition, said Wednesday that for the past two years he has favored reviewing the current ban.
“Attitudes and circumstances have changed,” he said.
For many younger members of the military — those doing the bulk of the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq — it’s hardly a debate at all. Polls suggest they care little about sexual orientation in their ranks.
And views in the wider society have evolved; gay marriage is now legal in five states and the District of Columbia. Opinion surveys say a majority of Americans think it’s OK for gays to serve in uniform.
“Do I care if someone is gay? I have no qualms,” said Army Sgt. Justin Graff, serving with the 5th Stryker Brigade in southern Afghanistan.
Jason Jonas, a former Army staff sergeant from Tempe, Ariz., said openly gay soldiers served in his intelligence unit at Fort Bragg, N.C., and their presence never affected unit morale.
“I don’t think it is anybody’s right to say who can and who can’t fight for their country,” said Jonas, 28, who served in Afghanistan before being injured. “Nobody cares. ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ is kind of a joke.”
A major influence in the coming debate will be the stance of the military’s most senior uniformed leader, Adm. Mike Mullen. He told a Senate panel Tuesday that he personally believes it is time to allow gays to serve openly. It’s just wrong, Mullen said, that gays must “lie about who they are” to defend their country.
Although Obama said he would work to change the law this year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave him some extra leeway by telling Congress the Pentagon would need at least a year to implement the changes. Gates’ comment gave the impression that he thinks repeal is almost inevitable, although a leading Republican voice on defense matters, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, opposes the change.
“I fully support the president’s decision,” Gates said. “The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it,” adding that the final decision rests with Congress.
In the meantime, Gates said he is seeking latitude in how the law is enforced.
The list of countries that permit gays to serve openly in uniform has grown to 28, including Canada, Israel, Australia and most of Europe. Many of those nations have troops fighting alongside U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
Yet in the U.S., there remains a powerful rhetorical weapon for opponents of lifting the ban — fear that it would weaken a military at war.
It’s a question that cuts to the heart of why sexual orientation has been such a sensitive topic in the military in the past — and remains so among those who see repeal of the 1993 ban on allowing gays to serve openly as putting still more stress on a military strained by years of conflict.
Mullen said he shares that concern, even as he became the first sitting chairman of the Joint Chiefs to publicly advocate allowing gays to serve openly. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee “there will be some disruption in the force” if the law is changed.
“Our plate is very full” already, he said.
Obama entered the White House as an advocate of repealing the ban, but he let it rest for a year. Last week, in his State of the Union address, he vowed to work with Congress this year “to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”
When Clinton entered the White House in 1993 he ignited a political firestorm by trying to use his executive powers to end the policy — not written into law at that point — of discriminating against gay service members in the military.
Congress stopped him by passing a law that does not explicitly prohibit gays or lesbians from serving but requires them to serve in silence. If they acknowledge their sexual orientation or engage in a homosexual act, they can be expelled. But if not asked, they need not disclose it.
The 1993 statute calls the military a “specialized society” in which life is “fundamentally different from civilian life.” And so it is. But the cultural differences are not necessarily as stark as in 1993.
Walter Slocombe, a defense consultant who was a senior Pentagon policy officer during the Clinton administration, says most military members “won’t care one way or another” if the ban is lifted.
All branches of the military struggle to some extent with racial, religious and gender tensions, he noted, but “that’s a result of having a military that reflects the diversity of the country.”
___
EDITOR’S NOTE — Robert Burns has covered national security and military affairs for The Associated Press since 1990. Associated Press writers Christopher Torchia in southern Afghanistan and Kevin Maurer in Wilmington, N.C., contributed to this report.
