Issue: The Ability of Gays and Lesbians to Serve Openly in the Military
Introduction: Kingdon’s Formulation
According to Kingdon, the decision agenda is a subset of items from the larger governmental agenda that are being decided on. In other words, issues on the decision agenda have a more “active status” than those on the governmental agenda.[1] Looking at the issue of gay service members in the military, we can see that this issue has been on the governmental agenda – to varying extents – since the Revolutionary War. Although being gay was not a disqualifying characteristic in of itself in the late eighteenth century, performing acts of sodomy was classified as criminal and therefore punishable by expulsion from the armed services: “In 1778, Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin became the first solder to be drummed out of the Continental Army for sodomy.”[2]
Using the Kingdon framework to understand the issue’s movement from the government agenda to the decision agenda, the three streams of problem, policy and politics combined to exploit a policy window – in this case, the election of President Bill Clinton and his desire to fulfill a campaign promise.
The Problem Stream
By the 1990s, the problem of gay service members had come “to capture the attention of people in and around government.”[3] It is important to note that the development of the problem stream, in this case, is marked by policy decisions: in other words, this issue has been on the decision agenda in the past and the events of the early 1990s were only the latest iteration. Therefore, the development of the problem as it was conceived of during the late Bush and early Clinton administrations had evolved from the intertwining of problem, policy, and politics of earlier years.
During World War II homosexuality was viewed as a pathology, and policy reflected this changed understanding. Therefore, instead of focusing on homosexual acts as criminal, the logic behind exclusion of gay service members shifted to a medically based justification. “In 1942, revised mobilization regulations included for the first time a paragraph defining both the homosexual and ‘normal’ person and clarifying procedures for rejecting gay draftees. Homosexual Americans were allowed to serve, however, when personnel shortages necessitated it.” This pragmatic loosening of policy was short-lived: identifying as gay in the 1950s and 1960s was enough to disqualify men and women from serving.[4]
The 1970s was a decade of reevaluation. Two pivotal events served to propel the issue of gay service members into the forefront of people’s mind. Following the civil rights era of the 1960s, gays and lesbians agitated vocally and visibly for equal rights. One of the focal points of the movement was the military policy, most notably challenged with the unsuccessful 1975 case of Sergeant Leonard Matlovich. Sgt. Matlovich, USAF forced a General Discharge (less than Honorable) by handing his superior officer a letter stating his homosexuality. Activists hoped to ultimately bring the Sergeant’s case before the Supreme Court and force a landmark outcome similar to what the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision did for desegregation of the American school system.[5]
In 1982, the issue of gay service members decisively hit the decision agenda with Department of Defense Directive 1332.14, which unequivocally stated: “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order, and morale.”[6] The implementation of 1332.14 sparked renewed activism with service members and activists alike publicly protesting the new policy.[7] It was against this backdrop that legislation was introduced into Congress in 1991 and 1992 aiming to overturn the ban on gay service members in the military.
The Policy Stream
The policy community, defined as “bureaucrats, Hill staffers, academics, interest groups, [and] researchers,” creates potential policy solutions.[8] However, these solutions are not always actionable: they exist in the context of the problem and politics streams and are impossible barring the existence of a policy window. Examining the issue of gay service members, we can see instances of failed policy answers that were put forward without the necessary policy window but layed the groundwork for future policy.
Four bills were proposed during the 102nd Congress on the issue of gay service members. The first two tested the policy waters and were fairly weak attempts to find a solution. Rep. Barbara Boxer (CA-6) sponsored H. Res. 271 in November 1991. The bill urged “the President to rescind the Department of Defense Directive 1332.14 section H.1 so that all American, regardless of sexual orientation, currently serving their country in the armed services, and those who want to serve, will not be prevented from, or punished for, doing so.”[9] S. Res. 236, sponsored by Sen. Brock Adams(D-WA), contained identical language. “Sense of the Congress” resolutions are more rhetorical than substantive, so this move was neither strong nor well-timed enough to result in a decision. However, this demonstrates the issue of gay service members was getting increasingly more play and potential legislative solutions were in development.
The second two bills proved much more fruitful. .">H.R. 5208 and S. 3084, sponsored by Rep. Patricia Schroeder (CO-1) and Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) respectively in Spring/Summer of 1992, also contained identical language. Initially, neither bill moved significantly. The House bill was referred to the House Committee on Armed Services, which then requested executive comment from DOD and referred it to the appropriate subcommittee.[10] Similarly, the Senate Bill was read twice and then referred to the Committee on Armed Services.[11] Ultimately, however, the issue got traction in the Senate when Sen. Metzenbaum “introduced [the text] as an amendment to the FY 1993 National Defense Authorization Act. After a brief debate, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senate Sam Nunn stated:
‘I think the subject [homosexuality and military service] ought to be heard before we complete our mark up of the [FY 1994 defense authorization] bill. That markup is completed in either May or June of next year. I think before that time we ought to have hearings because this [homosexual policy] ought to be the subject of that [hearing]. I assure [Senate Metzenbaum] we will have hearings on the subject before we mark up our bill.’
Following the above statement, Senator Metzenbaum withdrew this amendment.”[12] Sen. Nunn’s promise proved correct as the issue was intensely debated before the passage of the FY 1994 bill.
The Political Stream, The Policy Window & the Role of the President
Politics of an issue may be entirely, or partially independent, of the problem and policy streams according to Kingdon. They are influenced by “things like swings of national mood, vagaries of public opinion, election results, changes in administration, shifts ideological distributions in Congress, and interest group pressure campaigns.”[13] On the issue of gay service members, the national mood proved complicated as evidenced by intense public and congressional debate when President Clinton moved to lift the ban as a fulfillment of his campaign promise. Originally, the pronouncement did not get much attention when he said he would take up this issue in a speech at Harvard University in October 1991. According to a 1993 Newsweek article, “It was only mildly remarkable at the time – the kind of gesture a moderate Democrat would make to impress the avant-garde, and one that seemed to bear no significant political price.”[14]
A critical event helped to soften the ground for the passage of DADT: the brutal murder of Petty Officer Allen Schindler in October 1992. He was kicked and beaten to death by two fellow naval officers in a restroom in Nagasaki, Japan. According to the New York Times, “gay rights advocates…accused the Navy of covering up circumstances of the killing” and called on president-elect Clinton to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident. High-profile media events like these can have an enormous impact on the political stream, which Baumgartner highlights in his writings on policy formation. This event, coupled with a campaign promise, and previous Congressional work created a policy window, however fraught.
Ultimately, President Clinton proved serious about addressing the issue once he got into office. He put it very clearly on the decision agenda during the first 100 days of term, a move that certainly signaled the seriousness of his commitment to the campaign promise.[15] President Clinton tried to introduce the DADT policy to Congress; however, after fierce debate, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1994 without the DADT language but with a codification of the 1982 Directive 1332.14. The Clinton Administration responded in December 1993 with Department of Defense Directive 1304.26, which technically followed the law passed with the FY 1994 Defense Authorization. DADT echoed the pre-WWII formulation by focusing on homosexual behavior rather than sexual orientation.
[1] John W. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed. (New York: Longman, 2002): 166.
[2] Herek, Gregory M., Lesbians and Gay Men in the U.S. Military: Historical Background, accessed 9 April 2010
[3] John W. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed. (New York: Longman, 2002): 87.
[4] Ibid.
[5] “The Sexes: The Sergeant v. the Air Force,” Time Magazine, 8 Sep 1975, accessed 9 April 2010
[6] DOD Directrive 1332.14, “Enlisted Administrative Separations,” 28 Jan 1982, accessed 9 April 2010
[7] Herek, Gregory M., Lesbians and Gay Men in the U.S. Military: Historical Background, accessed 9 April 2010
[8] John W. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed. (New York: Longman, 2002): 87.
[9] The DADT Digital Archives Project, accessed 9 April 2010
[10] The Library of Congress: THOMAS, “H.R. 5208,” accessed 9 April 2010
[11] The Library of Congress: THOMAS, “S. 3084,” accessed 9 April 2010
[12] The DADT Digital Archives Project, accessed 9 April 2010
[13] John W. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed. (New York: Longman, 2002): 87.
[14] “Gays in the Military,” Newsweek, 1 Feb 1993, accessed 9 April 2010
[15] Politicusa, “Comparing Bill Clinton and Barak Obama’s First 100 Days,” 27 Apr 2009, accessed 9 Apr 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment