Bill Clinton is getting far more attention than he wants over the issue of gays in the military. But he deserves every bit of it--and more.

The president-elect has promised to put an end to regulations that require homosexuals to remain in the closet if they want to serve their country. I believe Clinton when he says he genuinely opposes discrimination by the military, but I also believe it's an issue he would rather avoid.

After all, the man is notoriously averse to conflict. But he's already gotten a taste of the kind of controversy the gays-in-uniform issue engenders, and whether he likes it or not, this issue will be the first major test of his ability to satisfy the broad coalition that elected him without disappointing the liberals who represent his roots.

That's right: liberals. You haven't heard much from us lately. We stayed out of Clinton's way during the campaign because we wanted him to win the election. We tolerated all that talk about him being a "moderate" and a "New Democrat" but we never believed it. In fact, the one time we agreed with soon-to-be-former President George Bush was when he insisted that Clinton is a closet liberal.

But what if we were wrong? What if Bill Clinton really turns out to be the moderate he has insisted he is?

So far, he has given us little reason to worry: after all, AIDS and the environment were among the first words out of his mouth after he won the election.

But he has treaded delicately around the issue of homosexuals in the military, and we liberals want a demonstration of decisiveness from a man long criticized for equivocation.

The issue is a weathervane for his approach to social issues, and so far Clinton has been a model of moderation. He has only addressed the ban on gays in response to queries by reporters, and then he has sounded disconcerted and afraid to offend.

He has not retreated from his oppposition to anti-gay discrimination, but he has also avoided any direct expression of support for gay rights. He has repeated his intention to end the ban, but he has also promised not to make any quick changes, saying he understands the concerns of people like General Colin Powell and Senator Sam Nunn.

These concessions made him sound indecisive, compromising, unwilling to take a strong leadership position on a controversial issue.

Compromise is excusable--in fact, it is essential if he expects to get anything done. But indecision is not, especially regarding an explicit campaign promise to a group of people whose support for him would have been ambivalent but for his quiet reassurances. Now that the election is over, we liberals want to see Clinton demonstrate his liberalism.

That means he had better reiterate his firm commitment to ending discrimination in the military. He needs to declare loudly, publicly and unequivocally that the ban on gays will not stand. Period. Then, he can begin to discuss the way to do it.

If Clinton leaves us with no doubt about his intentions, we will be willing to compromise on the method. We understand that ardent and uncompromising radicalism may be an appropriate voice for anti-establishment dissenters, but it is not appropriate for the constituents of a sympathetic president.

We realize that it will not be easy to change the homophobic attitudes that are rampant in the military.

Take, for example, the ignorance of James Pearson, an Army mechanic who asked, "If you work with some guy who's gay, how can you be sure you won't get AIDS? It would make me feel unsure, unsafe. I would definitely get out in a heartbeat."