Excerpt from:
The White House Office of the Press Secretary (Southfield, Michigan) _
For Immediate Release February 10, 1993
Remarks By The President In "Town Meeting With Bill Clinton"
Wxyz-Tv Station Southfield, Michigan
8:00 P.M. Est
...
Q Bill Bonds, as you know, the issue of lifting the ban on gays in the military has been a particularly heated one here in the south. Roger Turner wants to ask you, Mr. President, why you want to do it. Tell the President why you don't want him to lift the ban and see if he can respond to that.
Q Having served in the United States Navy for five years aboard a guided missile destroyer and also doing isolated duty in Alaska, and as a Christian and having the opportunity to minister to a number of men in the Navy, I believe it would just add continued undue pressure on the situation that's already pressure-packed to begin with. And I want to know, why do you want to lift the ban and what impact do you see the ban having on the military?
Mr. Bonds: Mr. President, does it surprise you to hear a minister -- we also have a minister standing here who very much wants the ban lifted. Does it surprise you to hear a minister say we should keep the ban in place or continue a discriminatory pattern?
The President: Absolutely not. Because a lot of ministers of the gospel believe that homosexuality is morally wrong and, therefore, that ground alone is enough to justify the ban.
Let me tell you why I favor lifting it very briefly. We have now -- and everyone concedes we have always had -- homosexual men and women in the military service. I received a letter from a retired officer -- a woman -- the other day who told me she left the service because she could not be honest about her sexual orientation, even though she was a distinguished officer with a remarkable service record -- one of many such letters I have received. Your government spent $500 million to get rid of about 16,300 homosexuals from the service in the 1980s.
Now, here's my position. If there are homosexual men and women in the service anyway -- if we know they have served with distinction and they have always been there, the issue is should you be able to say what you are and not be kicked out. This is not about conduct; this is about status. I believe there ought to be the strictest code of behavioral conduct applicable here. I also believe there ought to be an even stricter code applicable to sexual harassment, whether homosexual or heterosexual. The biggest sexual problem in the armed services, according to the men and women who talked to me, involves heterosexual harassment.
I think there ought to be a tough code of conduct. If people do wrong, they ought to be gotten out. But I think people should not be asked to lie if they're going to be allowed to serve, because the question is not whether they should be there or not. They are there. So the narrow question of this debate is should you be able to stay and admit it.
The military itself has admitted they should stop asking people when they join. That's the position of the Joint Chiefs. So the only question here is should you be able to say that you're a homosexual if you do nothing wrong. I say yes. Others say no. The military is setting the practical problems about duty assignments and other things, and we'll revisit this in about six months. (Applause.)