Last week, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) had to withdraw a proposed amendment that would have placed an 18-month moratorium on discharges under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” (DADT) the federal policy that prevents gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

The measure seemed like a no brainer, and many expected 60 Democrats and a few moderate Republicans to support it. Sixty votes were necessary; without them a cloture motion cannot pass, and senators seeking to block a proposal can take to the Senate floor and hold it for days.

But the votes were not forthcoming. Even though, just two weeks earlier, the Senate had voted in favor of adding “sexual orientation” to a federal law banning hate crimes – indicating that there are ample majorities in both the Senate and the House who are not homophobic – the senators were too scared of anti-gay voters and of military brass to pass the proposed amendment on DADT.

The military wants to keep DADT because it’s a recruiting tool.

Recruiters complain that it’s already difficult to interest folks in fighting a war in Afghanistan without having to also convince them to serve with gays.

They say that the war, which most everyone agrees is worthless but necessary to keep the Taliban from reclaiming Afghanistan as its breeding ground, is unpopular enough without repealing DADT and thus limiting their best recruiting pools — rural areas, particularly in the south. They say parents in those areas will not allow their children to enlist if they think their teen sons and daughters will be around homosexuals.

Call this stupid and absurd, but the military calls it a “reality,” one they say just doesn’t exist to the same degree in countries where gays serve openly.

I suggested to gay leaders that we take a middle ground on DADT and place openly gay and lesbian staff in units where they can serve openly with others who do not object. People have joked about this proposal as a “separate but equal” approach to the DADT policy. But I remind them that at least Rosa Parks had a seat on the segregated bus – we’re not even allowed on.

And, after all, the military has already accepted a compromise of DADT. It has no problem with the fact that GLBT personnel cannot be summarily discharged under DADT, thanks to a federal appellate decision holding that the military must show in each case the discharge is necessary to further a compelling military objective. So it likely wouldn’t be opposed to a further compromise allowing it to assure parents of its largest recruiting base that their youngsters won’t be forced to serve alongside gays.

My proposal is a compromise that seeks to meet both the military’s concerns and ours. We want gays and lesbians to be able to serve openly (hopefully, that would also mean they could marry without being discharged, and that they (and their children) would receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples.) They would be able to serve in all units except those units reserved, or “segregated,” for those too homophobic to tolerate us (those poor fearful souls on their way toward extinction).

Yes, it’s all ludicrous. The military is fine with recruiting folks with criminal records, gang memberships and ties to fundamentalist Islamic groups, but don’t bring a GLBT person aboard!

But logic has never been a staple of this democracy. So I remind you of my proposal because the news from D.C. is sobering. Let’s be clear: There is a Democratic President, an African-American one at that. There are 60 Democrats and at least four moderate Republicans in the Senate (64 votes), and the Democrats have a hefty majority in the House. If we can’t make a dent in DADT now, especially before the 2010 elections, when Democrats will take a hit, we may never get a chance to make progress on this issue.