Maine U.S. Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins were right to stand with the Republican minority Tuesday and hold up a vote on a $726 billion military spending package.

The measure, essentially the U.S. military’s annual budget, would have provided an array of items critical to the common defense: fighter planes, a new school to train much-needed nurses and body armor for soldiers, among other things. The measure also would have provided a 1.3 percent pay raise for America’s 2.4 million airmen, soldiers, sailors and Marines.

But, while the U.S. Senate did again what it’s very good at these days — nothing — we believe Snowe and Collins made the right choice.

The controversial amendment to set up a process to repeal the Clinton-era policy of banning openly gay, lesbian and bisexual soldiers, sailors and airmen from serving in the armed forces does not belong in the defense authorization spending bill. The policy didn’t originate in a spending bill and deserves to be discussed and decided on its own. Or, perhaps the better venue is the Oval Office.

President Reagan issued the policy that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service” by Defense Directive 1332.14, backing the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In 1993, President Clinton issued his own directive, 1304.26, which is the current policy not to ask military applicants about their sexual orientation, which became known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Snowe is right that the policy must be critically reviewed by the Department of Defense, Congress and the Pentagon. Such a review is already under way and will include input from active-duty members of the nation’s armed forces — the very people most immediately affected by any change.

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” has long been abhorred by gay rights activists, many of whom felt Tuesday may have been the best, last chance to overturn the policy they say is unfair and discriminatory.

Despite her vote against the bill, Collins appears to agree the policy is unfair: “My view is that our armed forces should welcome the service of any qualified individual who is willing and capable of serving our country,” Collins said. “My bottom line is if an individual is willing to put on the uniform of our country to be deployed in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan, to risk his or her life for our country, then we should be expressing our gratitude to those individuals, not trying to exclude them from serving or expel them from the force.”

So, the Senate’s move to kill the spending authorization bill really wasn’t a declaration on the social rightness or wrongness of the Clinton policy. It was a push for Congress to separate important social and financial decisions.

It is imperative, Snowe said, “that Senate deliberations on the defense bill be conducted without limitations and in a manner that allows for the consideration of all related amendments that senators may wish to offer.”

The lumping together of important military financial issues with wedge social issues is believed by many to be a ploy aimed at helping struggling Democrats in the upcoming mid-term elections. But is horse trading the issues of sexual orientation and military spending really the best way to set national policy? Or, is thorough study and informed debate the better way to go?

Gay rights advocates aren’t gaga about the argument to split “dont ask, don’t tell” from the budget, but we think Snowe and Collins made the right choice for an open democracy. The Senate needs clean votes, on gays in the military and on defense spending.

The clearest and best solution here is to untangle the issues and give them the focused, separate consideration they deserve.

[email protected]