Officers and NCOs who have the responsibility for maintaining military effectiveness should have great discretion regarding what constitutes sufficient information upon which to question a service member regarding his or her status as a homosexual. The congressional findings supporting the 1993 law reflect the common sense observation that military organizations exist to win wars. That is their functional imperative. This they do by means of an ethos that stresses discipline, good order, and unit cohesion. Anything that poses a threat to the nonsexual bonding that lies at the heart of unit cohesion hurts discipline and morale, generating friction and undermining this ethos.
Homosexuality poses such a threat.
First it would lead to a dangerous politicization of the selection process for senior officers, by placing a premium on supporting the social agenda of liberal civilian activists at the expense of providing sound military advice. One consequence would be to reduce the pool of qualified candidates for high command. Secondly, unless the law is changed, requiring a nominee for the Joint Chiefs of Staff to support Al Gore's preference regarding homosexuals in the service would put the nominee in conflict with the law. The Democrats are wrong on this issue. They are wrong constitutionally because the president does not have the power unilaterally to permit homosexuals to serve openly in the military.