Before World War I, the military had no set policy regarding gays and lesbians serving in its ranks, but discharges for homosexual conduct occurred nonetheless. After the war, with the proliferation of psychological studies on sexual “inversion,” the Articles of War added consensual sodomy as criminal behavior. By the start of World War II, gay and lesbian recruits were routinely weeded out during the induction process for “psychiatric” reasons.

But as the war effort-and the need for soldiers-grew, the military relaxed the ban, and many gays and lesbians were allowed to enlist and serve. It wasn’t until the war was winding down that the military once again began to enforce its antigay regulations, issuing dishonorable “blue” discharges to many gay service members. Crackdowns on gay and lesbian personnel continued throughout the ‘50s and ‘60s.

As part of the gay rights movement that flourished in the 1970s, a number of gay soldiers, beginning with Sgt. Leonard Matlovich, mounted unsuccessful legal challenges to the dismissal of homosexuals from the military. Then, in 1981, the Department of Defense wrote into its policy that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service,” requiring discharge for any person “who engages in, desires to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.”

During the 80s, more queer service members tried to fightthe military’s policy. There were a few high-profile successes, like that of Sgt. Miriam Ben-Shalom, who in 1987 was reinstated by the U.S. Army Reserves after a 10-year battle. More activists began calling for an end to the ban.

Then came Candidate Clinton. He first broached the subject of lifting the ban at a speech at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government in the fall of 1991. As the Democratic frontrunner in May 1992, Clinton made a historic announcement at a gay campaign fundraiser in Hollywood.

After being introduced by David Mixner-an out gay man who advised Clinton on gay-rights issues-Clinton vowed that, if elected, he would take swift action against the DOD’s antigay policy. Although the promise didn’t raise much debate during the campaign, it did help garner Clinton a wealth of gay contributions over the next several months and the support of an overwhelming majority of gay voters in November.

Just days after his inauguration in January 1993, President Clinton issued a memorandum instructing Defense Secretary Les Aspin to draft an executive order ending antigay discrimination in the military. The memo was met with fierce opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, especially Gen. Colin Powell, the chair; Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), chair of the Armed Services Committee; and numerous members of both houses of Congress. Aspin urged Clinton to delay the order, and the president quickly announced a six-month review period, in which there would be a temporary suspension of gay discharges and military officials could not question recruits about their sexual orientation.

Throughout the spring of 1993, Congress held a series of heated hearings on the military issue. Those in favor of lifting the ban often compared the issue to racial segregation in the military before 1948. Opponents held that allowing gays to serve openly would be “prejudicial to good order and discipline” because of the military’s “close quarters.” One witness-Col. Fred Peck, whose own son was gay-said he would never want his son to serve for fear “his life would be in jeopardy from his own troops.” The sensational press the hearings garnered helped stir up public opinion against gays serving in the military.

In the face of such strong opposition, the Clinton administration abandoned the idea of lifting the ban completely, although the president was adamant that the revised policy be conduct-based-”not what they are, but what they do,” as Aspin explained to the Armed Services Committee. In July of that year, Clinton announced the compromise he and Nunn had reached, a policy whose guiding principles had become known as “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue.”

Under this plan, gay people could ostensibly serve in the military-as they always had-as long as they didn’t mention their sexual orientation. No one in the military could ask them about their sexuality, which was considered a “personal and private matter.” Only “homosexual conduct” could lead to discharge.

But that fall, Congress codified the policy in the Defense Authorization Act, using much different language. The new law weakened the distinction between homosexual status and conduct and asserted that homosexuality is an “unacceptable risk ... to unit cohesion.”

Further, the new legislation made it impossible to change the military policy by executive decree.

Since that time, gay discharges have, ironically, increased. Many of these discharges have occurred within the first months of service. This may be in part because gay recruits realize they’re facing a hostile environment and “tell” to be released from service, since harassment of gay-or presumed gay-service members has also risen since 1993. The beating death of Pvt. Barry Winchell by a fellow soldier in 1999 drew public attention to an alarming level of antigay harassment that was going unchecked by military officials.

Soon after Winchell’s murder, Clinton himself pronounced “don’t ask, don’t tell” a failure.