Elaine Donnelly (Blade photo by Michael Key)

A leading opponent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is continuing her effort to prevent gays from serving openly in the U.S. military and is calling for extended discussion before the military’s gay ban is lifted.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, on Thursday called for more congressional hearings on allowing gays to serve openly in the military and time to question Pentagon officials before repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” takes effect.

“Our position is Congress should tell the Pentagon, ‘Not so fast!’” she said. “They need to ask questions, they need to have hearings. We need to keep in mind what is the most important thing. … Certainly, the military is too important to be used for social engineering, political payoffs. Diversity is important, yes, but not as a primary goal.”

Donnelly urged for greater deliberation before enacting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal during a panel titled “How Political Correctness Is Harming America’s Military” at the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference in D.C.

In 20o8, Donnelly gained notoriety as an opponent of gays in the military when she testified during a House hearing on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” After her testimony, when she decried the possible spread of “HIV positivity” in the military and the “forced intimacy” of straight troops serving with gays, Donnelly was widely criticized and lampooned by the media.

During her CPAC panel appearance, Donnelly denounced the law allowing for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that President Obama signed in December, which she said was “rushed through recklessly” in the lame-duck session of the 111th Congress.

“It’s supposed to be a non-discrimination policy,” she said. “But instead of calling it ‘Not “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,”‘ … let’s give it a name. We call it the ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Law for the Military’ – ’LGBT Law’ for short. We have to start thinking about it in terms of what it would do.”

The repeal provides for an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” only after the president, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify the U.S. military is ready for repeal. But Donnelly said this language was a “meaningless” provision in the law.

“There’s going to be a lot of problems,” she said. ”The Congress has yet to have hearings on the House side on this, so our position is this: don’t you think we should ask some questions first?”

Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, said the debate over ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has gone on for 17 years and noted House and Senate committees had several hearings in the last Congress.

“No more discussion is needed on this issue,” Sainz said. “And I think Republicans and Democrats, not just Democrats, but Republicans and Democrats, concluded that that was the case when they voted to go ahead and pass this legislation last year. At some point, you just have to call the question, and that’s exactly what happened.”

During the panel, Donnelly said she and other opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal assembled a 25-page list of questions that “not should be asked, but must be asked” to evaluate the mesaure passed last year.

Among the questions, Donnelly said, is which of the findings in the 1993 law are not valid — how will the armed forces “train people to be less senstive to sexual privacy and modesty.”

Donnelly also raised concerns about “zero tolerance” for service members who object to serving alongside openly gay people.

“What about when you have a problem and say, “This needs to changed,’” Donnelly said. ”And someone says, ‘What’s the matter with you? Is there something wrong with your attitude? Are you prejudiced? We’ll get you more training — more LGBT training.’”

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said what Donnelly referred to as “zero tolerance” is actually unprofessional behavior in the U.S. military.

“You see a lot, in my experience, from people who oppose this policy change and others, the desire to express their beliefs in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner, and then they get upset when they’re not permitted to engage in that type of behavior,” Nicholson said.

Donnelly also said the controversies found in teaching about same-sex couples in civilian schools would mean the military would likewise have similar problems and would need to implement a “school of choice” system.

“We know how controversial it is to have LGBT training in civilian schools,” Donnelly said. “Just imagine what that’s going to be in the Department of Defense schools where there really is no choice. Will we not need ‘school of choice’ in the Department of Defense? Yes, we will.”

Nicholson said Donnelly’s assertion is a example of someone “talking about the military who has never spent one single day in uniform.”

“There aren’t multiple ideologically based training schools for anything in the military, whether that be for occupations or the leadership academies and things like that,” he said.

Also, Donnelly said military chaplains would have to “endorse homosexuality” if they had to be ministers for openly gay people in the military.

“It was said during hearings in the Senate, ‘Well, we’re going to lose a lot of chaplains,’ so one of the questions is ‘How many chaplains are we going to lose?’” she said.

Sainz identified Donnelly’s assertion about chaplains as among “the half-truths or complete falsehoods” that she’s been repeating in her opposition to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“No one’s being asked to endorse homosexuality,” Sainz said. “It’s kind of a bizarro statement. They are not being asked to put their religious beliefs aside.”

In addition to denouncing the repeal law, Donnelly also took issue with the Pentagon’s report on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Taking a line from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), an opponent of repeal in the Senate, Donnelly said the survey that went out to service members as part of the report didn’t ask the right question.

“The survey that was done, the RAND Corp. had a lot to do with it, and a company called Westat or something,” Donnelly said. ”They had all these questions and they never once asked the question: ’Do you favor retention or repeal of the law?’”

One of the questions on the survey asks service members if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed and they are working with someone who says he or she is gay, how would it affect their unit’s ability to work together to get the job done. About 70 percent of responders said it would have a positive, mixed or no effect.

Nicholson said Donnelly didn’t like the questions that were part of the survey because they didn’t result in responses that would have worked in her favor.

“I think she’s just upset that the purpose was not to conduct a referendum on military policy among members of the force because she thinks she would have won that referendum,” he said.

Joining Donnelly during the panel discussion was Ilario Pantano, a Marine sniper who served in the Iraq war, who used his discussion time to argue that the United States is a Christian nation and that China is building up its defenses “because they fear Jesus Christ.”

Pantano also said he concurred with Donnelly’s sentiments and noted that former Rep. Patrick Murphy, who championed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in the U.S. House, received what he said was $90,000 from the liberal MoveOn.org and $40,000 from the Human Rights Campaign in the 2010 election.

“If people talk ultimately about issues of fairness, why are they needing to spend tens of millions of dollars to lobby the Democratic Party if it’s truly about efficacy and the good of the people who’ve been in the armed forces,” Pantano said.

In response, Sainz said HRC’s contributions to Murphy’s campaign are “hardly remarkable” because the Pennsylvania lawmaker was a friend and deserved re-election. Sainz added right-wing groups are donating money to anti-gay lawmakers who oppose “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

Sainz also said Pantano was being “wildly inaccurate” on the money he says HRC spent on the Murphy campaign. According to the Federal Election Commission website, HRC contributed slightly more than $9,000 to Murphy’s campaign in the 2010 election.

Donnelly also attempted to raise fears about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal law by saying it could open the door to allow openly transgender people in the military. Currently, transgender people aren’t allowed to serve in the armed forces because of regulations.

“Right now, they’re saying no transgenders,” Donnelly said. “They’ve thrown the ‘T’s’ under the bus. But the president has celebrated ‘LGBT Equality Month’ twice in the month of June. So why not? Why not? What is the rationale for excluding them?”

Mara Keisling, executive director for the National Transgender Center for Equality, said Donnelly was raising the issue of transgender people in the U.S. military to draw attention to ”her last shrill efforts to try to stop “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal,” but added she’s right that trans people shouldn’t be excluded.

“There is no more reason to exclude trans people from service than there is to exclude women, or anybody, African Americans or gay people,” Keisling said. “It’s just all based on old stereotypes that people like Elaine Donnelly use to advance their own causes.”

Keisling noted that the national study on trans people made public last week found that 20 percent of them were veterans, which she said was double the national average.

Conservatives from across the country converged in Washington this weekend at the Wardman Park Marriott for the Conservative Political Action Conference. Speakers included many Republican Party luminaries as well as conservative activists.

(Washington Blade photos by Michael Key)

U.S. Sen. John McCain (Blade photo by Michael Key)

A number of high-ranking military officers whose names appear on a well-publicized letter supporting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” were involved in career-ending scandals or have said the letter doesn’t represent their views, according to Servicemembers United.

The organization’s preliminary investigation of 200 names on the letter, which more than 1,100 flag and general officers signed, reveals new information that could undermine the document supporting the 1993 law barring gays from serving openly in the military.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said his organization’s report “speaks to an overall lack of expertise” the signers have on the views of service members of the 21st century military.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center of Military Readiness, gathered the names for the letter, which was first published last year. She didn’t respond to multiple requests from DC Agenda to comment on Servicemembers United’s report.

Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” have often cited the letter as evidence of military support for keeping the law on the books. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), an opponent of repeal, held up the letter during a Senate hearing on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” last month.

“I hope you’ll pay attention to the views of over 1,000 retired flag and general officers,” McCain told Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the time regarding the study of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that’s underway at the Pentagon.

But Servicemembers United’s report — titled, “Flag and General Officers for the Military: A Closer Look” — sheds new light on the letter. Nicholson said one of the most striking discoveries was the age of many signers.

“Only a small fraction of these officers have even served in the military during the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ period, much less in the 21st century military,” Nicholson said. “How can these flag officers honestly claim to know how accepting and tolerant 18- and 21-year-olds are today when most of them haven’t been that age themselves since the 1940s and 1950s?”

The report found the average age among is the officers is 74, the oldest living signer is 98, and several signers died in the time since the document was published.

At least one signer, Gen. Louis Menetrey, was deceased when the letter was published and didn’t sign the document himself. According to a footnote on the letter, his wife signed the document for him after his death using power of attorney — six years after Alzheimer’s disease robbed him of the ability to communicate.

Servicemembers United findings also indicate the letter doesn’t represent the viewpoints of some officers who purportedly signed it. One signer said they no longer want to be a part of the letter, writing to the organization, “I do not wish to be on any list regarding this issue.”

Others said they never agreed to sign in the first place. One general wrote, “I never agreed. To represent either side of this issue.” Another wrote, “I do not remember being asked about this issue.”

DC Agenda independently found one general who acknowledged signing the letter, but said he now believes gays should be allowed to serve in the armed forces so long as they adhere to the code of conduct.

“I do not believe there should be any limitations based on sexual orientation,” said the general, who asked not to be identified.

In addition to signers who say the letter doesn’t represent their views, others were involved in scandals tarnishing their careers. Nicholson said the number of scandals in which signers have been involved “jumps out” as a major component of the report, adding some officers made “heinous failures of judgment and leadership.”

The report identifies seven officers that were involved in such incidents:

• Brig. Gen. Eddie Cain was in the early 1990s director of the Pentagon agency in charge of the anthrax vaccine administered to troops and testified before Congress the vaccine was safe and tested. Later reports showed it was neither. Cain was revealed to have known his testimony was inaccurate, and wrote in personal e-mails that if Congress found out, he’d be “in big-time trouble.”

• Brig. Gen. David Boland in 1994 was executive director of a “boot camp” for at-risk children at Camp Wiecker, Conn., that was mired in problems and later discontinued. According to the New York Times, gang recruitment, sexual relations between students and faculty, drug use, gambling rings and widespread violence and fighting — including one fight that resulted in 14 arrests — took place at Camp Wiecker under Boland’s supervision. Boland later stepped down to “pursue other interests.”

• Rear Adm. Riley Mixson in 1993 received a career-ending letter of censure from then-Navy Secretary John Dalton for involvement in the 1991 Tailhook scandal, during which he failed to take action against allegations of sexual misconduct. According to the New York Times, “Mixson was cited for failing to take action when he saw a woman drink from a dispenser made to look like a rhinoceros’ penis and men shaving women’s legs.”

• Gen. Carl Mundy made several statements in 1993 on CBS’ “60 Minutes” that racial minority soldiers “don’t swim as well” or perform other duties as well as white troops. He also once unilaterally banned married recruits from joining the Marine Corps, a move Defense Secretary Les Aspin rescinded the following week.

• Lt. Gen. Fred McCorkle was head of Marine Corps Aviation in the late 1990s, during the design and test phase of the V-22 Osprey. He oversaw cost overruns and allegedly falsified records — all while praising the aircraft. McCorkle now works for and sits on the boards of several companies that manufacture Osprey components.

• Brig. Gen. Gary Pendleton was named in a lawsuit in 2008 for unlawfully discriminating on the basis of race against an employee in awarding her a lower annual bonus than her co-workers. Pendleton was also said to have fired the employee in retaliation for her complaints.

• Brig. Gen. Darryl Powell oversaw in 1985 a spike in malpractice lawsuits as commander of Madigan Army Medical Center. In one case, a woman was injected with formaldehyde instead of medication, killing her and her unborn child.

Nicholson said even with these scandals, the majority of the officers on the letter served with distinction. Still, he questioned whether the more than 1,100 officers who signed the letter understand the attitudes and beliefs of the young people in service today.

“It is simply unreasonable to think that any of them can be experts on the new generation [of] youth that make up the vast majority of the military today — the generation of iPhones, Facebook, and acceptance of those who are different,” he said.

One of the leading voices against gays in the armed forces had stern words on Thursday for the top uniform official in the U.S. military and his public support for ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, railed against Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen — and efforts to allow gays to serve in the U.S. military — at a press conference with other social conservatives during the Conservative Political Action Conference, which is taking place this weekend in D.C.

During her presentation, she pointed to a button on her jacket depicting a rainbow-colored pentagon with a question mark at the center. Donnelly said the button symbolized the unanswered questions her “Military Culture Coalition” had on how passage of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which she dubbed “the LGBT law,” would impact the U.S. armed forces.

Standing before four posters of complex flow charts detailing questions that arise if gays were allowed to serve in the military — including one chart that detailed the impact of “forced intimacy” — Donnelly was critical of Mullen for coming out in favor of open service in congressional testimony earlier this month.

“Adm. Mullen admitted he didn’t know what repeal would mean, but he spoke — for himself personally — in favor of policies that are known to be disruptive,” he said. “Adm. Mullen called this leadership, but it looked to me like letting down the troops.”

Donnelly said it was “inappropriate” for Mullen to testify in favor of open service before the Pentagon completes its review on implementing repeal, which is expected at the end of this year.

“It was inappropriate for him to get that far ahead of Congress, to try to create the impression — even though he said he was speaking only for himself — to pretty much squeeze out of the media picture military people who disagree,” Donnelly said.

She touted a letter of 1,164 flag and general officers in support of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and held it over her head after she rebuked Mullen.

Noting a recent report from McClatchy news service, Donnelly also criticized Mullen for publicly noting how no service members had questions for him on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during a question-and-answer session in Amman, Jordan. The report stated none of those troops asked Mullen about the law or his support for open service.

“What surprised me about that was that Adm. Mullen would try to solicit comments from active duty military people and put them at a disadvantage in presence of the press,” she said. “I don’t think active duty people should be used as props to promote this cause.”

Kevin Nix, spokesperson for the pro-repeal Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said following the presser Donnelly’s opinion shouldn’t be taken as seriously as Mullen’s view — or the views of former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell and former Vice President Richard Cheney, who also recently came out in favor the Pentagon’s approach toward repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“We hope Congress would listen more to the recommendations from Adm. Mullen and Secretary Gates than the recommendations from Elaine Donnelly and the other groups we heard from today,” Nix said. “Adm. Mullen, Secretary Gates, Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell are in a better position to know the impact of lifting the ban on the military.”

The opponents of gays in the military also emphasized “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” shouldn’t be changed at a time when the country is facing terrorism threats and is engaged in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said, “This is the worst time to consider experimenting with our nation’s military.”

But when asked whether there would ever be a time to consider allowing gays to serve openly in the U.S. military, Donnelly said, “I will think I answer for everybody; there is no good time to use our military for social engineering.”

In response, Nix said while timing may not matter for opponents of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” ending the law during the course of two wars does matter for those who seeking open service.

“The timing is this year, during two wars, and in somewhat favorable political climate,” he said. “This is when we need to retain all the qualified people we can get. Those skills and capabilities need to stay in and not get discharged.”

Donnelly also disputed the argument by proponents of repeal that countries allowing gays to serve openly, like the United Kingdom and Israel, have experienced no detrimental impact on their militaries.

“These two countries are by no means role models for the United States,” she said. “The conditions in a small country like Israel do not duplicate the long-term deployments and the closed quarters that our military experiences on a regular basis.”

But Nix said countries large and small have been successful in implementing open service for their militaries.

“The Israeli military is tough as nails,” he said. “The large British military is one of our staunchest allies. The fact remains other militaries have moved to open service and can serve as a guide for our military.”

Donnelly’s press conference wasn’t an officially sponsored CPAC event. She held the presser in the same hotel that CPAC was taking place, but her event wasn’t an official part of the conference.

Conservatives who support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are increasingly becoming isolated in the conservative movement. Following her speech at CPAC, Liz Cheney, a conservative activsts and daughter of Richard Cheney, told Talking Points Memo she favors ending the ban on open service in the U.S. military.

“It’s time for it to end,” she was quoted as saying. “The joint chiefs, certainly the chairman of the joint chiefs, has been clear about that and I think that the country really is at a place now where it’s time for it to end.”

Activists are ramping up efforts this year to push for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” while remembering that similar optimism in 1993 on lifting the ban on gays serving openly led to the law’s creation.

Last week, President Obama affirmed his commitment during the State of the Union address to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” noting that he’d work this year with Congress and military leaders to end the law. His announcement brought new life to the issue in the mainstream media and among activist groups.

But amid this activity, the shadow of what took place in 1993, when LGBT advocates had similar optimism about lifting the ban, is influencing the work that’s happening today.

When former President Bill Clinton took office 17 years ago, advocates expected him to fulfill his campaign pledge to end the ban preventing gays from serving in the military. Since there was no federal law on the issue at the time, the only step required to end the ban was administrative action.

But resistance from Congress — particularly from then-Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn — and opposition from military leaders such as then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell thwarted Clinton’s efforts to end the ban.

The result was the 1993 law that came to be known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which at the time was billed as a compromise because it would ostensibly allow gays to serve in the U.S. military provided they didn’t disclose their sexual orientation.

Many activists have said Clinton was unable to fulfill his promise to end the ban because the LGBT community didn’t provide him with sufficient political cover to accomplish his goal.

Clinton also holds this view. After gay activist Lane Hudson questioned him on the matter last year during the Netroots Nation conference, Clinton told an audience of bloggers that advocates in 1993 “couldn’t deliver” support in the Congress needed to administratively end the ban.

David Smith, vice president of programs for the Human Rights Campaign, in 1993 was communications director for the Campaign for Military Service, a group that worked to help guide Clinton’s efforts to repeal the ban. While acknowledging LGBT activists made some possible missteps at the time, Smith told DC Agenda that a number of obstacles contributed to the creation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” not just deficiencies from activists.

“You had a very exuberant, politically naïve community combined with a politically naïve new president, a Democratic-controlled Congress that wasn’t all that enthusiastic about lifting the ban, and you had a Republican minority in Congress that was dying to regain the majority and inflict political harm on the new president and the Democratic Congress,” Smith said.

Smith said the LGBT community might have fared better if the issue had come up later in Clinton’s term as opposed to soon after he took office.

“In retrospect, I think if the community would have waited a year or two to better understand military resistance and understand congressional resistance, and mapped out a plan, Congress wouldn’t have been so quick to impose a law, and there might have been a different path,” Smith said.

Nathaniel Frank, author of “Unfriendly Fire” and research fellow at the Palm Center, a think-tank on gays in the military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, was similarly reluctant to ascribe the failure of lifting the ban in 1993 solely to shortcomings from the LGBT community.

“Yes, the gay community could have done more if it was bigger, more organized, better funded,” Frank said. “Political leaders need the pressure of constituents to help them get done what they need to get done, but I think that President Clinton there was really evading responsibility.”

Learning from mistakes

Whatever responsibility LGBT supporters had in creating “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” activists this year are learning from mistakes made at that time to support Obama in his goal of repealing the law.

Smith said one of the lessons learned from 1993 on repeal is to make tactical decisions after thoughtful planning. He noted that his organization has been “quietly pressing for action” for months on this issue in Congress and in the administration.

A more public campaign, Smith said, will launch soon and target states with lawmakers who would be key to overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Smith estimated the campaign would cost more than $2 million and would involve grassroots and grasstops efforts as well as earned and paid media.

“It’s very targeted, but again it’s still unclear exactly how this is going to unfold and it could go in any number of directions,” Smith said. “We need to be ready to deal with whatever direction it does go in to make sure the ultimate outcome is what we all expect.”

Smith declined to comment on which states HRC would target in its campaign or what the comment of earned and paid media, saying that such information needed to remain confidential for tactical reasons.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said his organization also is ramping up efforts amid the greater push to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“We always hoped it would happen sooner rather than later, but I think it’s definitely been a surprise that the president has decided to include this issue in the State of the Union and to move forward on this quickly,” Nicholson said. “So we’re obviously trying to rapidly expand our capacity, roll out a number of campaigns and initiatives that we wanted to get underway.”

Nicholson said Servicemembers United has been getting numerous media calls and has been identifying LGBT service members and veterans to respond to those requests. He also noted that his organization is trying to identify high-ranking retired military members who are straight and support allowing gays to serve openly.

Additionally, Nicholson said organizations opposed to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are having a larger number of collaborative meetings and working to “share information, share intelligence, share resources, work together more closely.”

But the lessons learned from 1993 are hanging over all efforts to repeal the law this year. Frank said advocates of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should keep in mind the arguments that opponents of gays in the military used then in the new push for overturning the law.

“The first thing that gay advocates should do is understand the history of the tactics the people used the last time — the fear tactics, the delay tactics, the dishonesty, the slippery slope arguments — making this much scarier and complicated than it really is,” Frank said.

Frank also cautioned against underestimating the vehemence with which opponents of gays in the military will defend the status quo.

“The religious right has been somewhat quiet on social issues in the last year and the media have been quiet on social issues,” Frank said. “They haven’t been as big, but make no mistake, they’ll come roaring back, so it’s important not to underestimate the vehemence of homophobia and the strength of the opposition to reform in military or religious circles.”

Still, Frank said advocates should be ready to differentiate between those who have “genuine anxiety” about what the change means for the U.S. military and those who are expressing concern simply to block repeal.

While it’s unclear what opponents of repeal are planning this year, Smith said HRC is anticipating the traditional faces — such as Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council — to “get in their TV makeup” to build opposition to repealing the law.

Familiar arguments

Opponents of gays in the military are starting to emerge with familiar arguments that were often used in 1993.

Following Obama’s State of the Union address, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz), who’s quickly becoming the primary opponent of any “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in the U.S. Senate, issued a statement in support of current policy.

McCain noted that “we have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country,” suggesting that ending the ban on gays serving openly would be detrimental to unit cohesion and take away from the U.S. military’s standing in the world.

Jarrod Chlapowksi, a gay U.S. Army veteran who supports HRC in its Voices of Honor tour, said “there’s a ton of ways” for supporters of repeal to approach McCain’s argument.

“The unit cohesion argument has been disproven numerous times,” he said. “We have the example of Israel. I don’t think anyone would say Israel has a weak military by any means, and that tends to be a pretty strong example. But there really is nothing supporting McCain’s position that this would be detrimental to unit cohesion.”

Another frequently used argument against allowing gays to serve in the military that could emerge again is concern about whether straight service members would be comfortable using shared shower facilities with gay troops.

But Chlapowksi said that concern can be allayed by noting that gay service members are already showering with straight troops and the change in policy hasn’t been shown to be disruptive in other countries.

“We already share showers, we already share foxholes, we already share barracks,” he said. “The only change is that you know who’s gay and who’s not. The reality is that’s not going to cause someone to go crazy and to make an exodus of troops.”

Even with the experience of 1993 looming over activists, much has changed in 17 years. Recent polls consistently show that a majority of the public supports repeal, and have even found that a majority of conservatives favor allowing gays to serve openly.

Smith said opponents of gays of military could thus have the issue backfire on them if they handle it incorrectly.

“The country is facing economic hardship, two wars — and if Republicans spend a lot of time trying to create political animosity around this issue, it could backfire on them big time,” Smith said. “But our opposition is not to be underestimated.”