Now that does present a conundrum. You decorated these officers in the past, called them outstanding, moral and dedicated, and now you find out they were "immoral."
I knew gays in the military, and they served as well as any other. Of course these weren't activist types, they kept their heads down and didn't flaunt it. Activists piss me off.
Do you think the homosexual act is immoral?
Duke Cunningham was decorated in the past, and was called outstanding. Would you agree that he is immoral?
Performance has nothing to do with morality.
They were adhering to Don't Ask/Don't Tell - just as they should have done. The decorated officers, who have decided to tell the world their sexual preference, were judged and honored for job performance - not sexual performance. Doing moral, or noble, things doesn't necessarily mean that every aspect of a life meets those standards.
The word homosexual, by definition, identifies an individual by sexual preference just as does the word heterosexual. Since sexual preference is only one part of an individual, and since the service and duty of military personnel has nothing to do with sexual preference, there is no need to know the preference. The problems come from focusing on sexuality, and wanting to be known by type of sexual preference.
Most people either suspicion, or know, whether someone is heterosexual or homosexual - just as you said about knowing homosexuals in the military. You probably knew a lot of heterosexuals too. There also may have been bi-sexuals. It doesn't seem unreasonable, to me, to expect people to work and socialize with one another publicly and keep their sexual preferences and sexual activities private.