The law excluding homosexuals from the military frequently is mislabeled with the catch phrase, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  There are four major reasons why this law, which should have been called the “Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993,” was never given a name of its own:  

1.  Inaccurate News Reports

On September 9, 1993, legislation sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), which would have allowed the Clinton Administration to accommodate gays in the military, was defeated 63-33. On September 28 a similar amendment, sponsored by Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) and Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-CO), was defeated with a second bi-partisan veto-proof vote, 264-169.  The proposal made by President Bill Clinton had gone down in flames, but major newspapers failed to accurately report the story.  

A thorough search of media archives reveals that only two newspapers reported on the defeat of the Meehan/Schroeder amendment.  Neither account quoted Senate-approved statutory language making it clear that “The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.” ¹  Instead, most news reports conveyed the erroneous impression that Congress had passed Clinton’s “compromise,” the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” plan to accommodate discreet homosexuals in the military.

2. No Primary Author or Distinctive Name

Many congressional bills are identified with the names of their primary sponsors, or are given attractive sounding names to build support before and after passage.  In this case, there was no individual author, and no descriptive “short title” for legislation to codify long-standing Defense Department regulations.  “Section 654, Title 10,” also known as “P.L. 103-160,” continues to be misnamed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  

3.  Political Self-Interest

The newly inaugurated President Clinton was determined to deliver on his campaign promise to repeal the Defense Department’s ban on gays in the military.  Homosexual activists, who were fully engaged in private meetings at the White House and Pentagon, organized a mass rally on the Washington D.C. Mall on April 25, 1993.  A spontaneous force of public opposition, however, made it impossible for Clinton to get his way with legislation.  Clinton still had a political interest in appearing to have accomplished something.  

Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, had been a key figure in the decision to reject various versions of the president’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” proposal, and to codify the pre-Clinton Defense Department Directives. Democrats nevertheless provided political cover to President Clinton by not correcting erroneous reports that Congress had approved Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” plan.

4.  Inconsistent Enforcement Regulations

Primary blame for the confusion belongs to Bill Clinton himself.  The determined President tried to mitigate his defeat in Congress by misusing the regulatory process.  Signing the law on November 30, (apparently with his fingers crossed behind his back), Clinton subsequently announced enforcement regulations that implement the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” concept that he had proposed, unsuccessfully, on July 19.  This administrative policy circumvents and undermines the law because it is dramatically different from the statute Congress had passed.²  

The 1993 law requires Defense Department documents and briefings to accurately explain its meaning.  Instead of complying with that mandate, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness, Edwin Dorn, issued “guidelines” on how to implement Clinton’s July 19 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” proposal.  The resulting confusion encourages dishonesty and complicates enforcement.

Glaring differences between Clinton’s policy and the law explain why factions on both sides of the issue are critical of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  President Bush should not have retained—and the next president should not continue—“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  

ENDNOTES

1.   Michael Ross, “House Backs Modified Ban on Gays in Armed Forces,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 29, 1993, at A11; and Rowan Scarborough, “Gay-Ban Deal Nearer to Becoming Law,” the Washington Times, Sept. 29, 1993, at A4. 

2.   10 U.S.C. § 654 (1993) accompanied by Senate Report No. 103-112, pp. 263-297, and House Report No. 103-200, pp. 286-290.  The text of the law that Congress actually passed, which should have been called the “Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993, is available here.  

GM070307b