Why is it always reported as the 'Pentagon's policy'? A little biased reporting?
No, it conflicts with federal law passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton. And you can't just say, I'm gay and get discharged [see "Rule of Construction", section (e)].
10 USC Sec. 654
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART II - PERSONNEL
CHAPTER 37 - GENERAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
STATUTE-
(a) Findings. - Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
[snip]
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
(b) Policy. - A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that -
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.
[snip]
(e) Rule of Construction. - Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that -
(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and
(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.
-SOURCE- (Added Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V, Sec. 571(a)(1), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1670.)
I'm curious about the rule of construction, subsection 2. It states that separation should not be pursued when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces." If the risk associated with gays is so strong and homosexuality is truly incompatible with military service, when would it NOT be in the best interest of the armed forces?
I worked briefly in a military hospital with a unit under stop-loss orders, and several of the "openly" gay members used to point this out as a bit of hipocracy on the part of Congress. I thought they had a point.