Incoming President Obama has promised to make a revision of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that excludes open homosexuals from military service a top priority. Correales examines the legal infrastructure of the ban and its real-world consequences. This review leads him to believe that "the true last-remaining reason for the policy is a level of legislative and administrative animus toward homosexuals as a group," and thus serves as "the prototypical case of invidious discrimination against a politically unpopular group." As such, the policy should be revoked and U.S. military practice brought in line with that of the other civilized nations.

The author, finding the "formation of identity, sexual or otherwise, to be inherently a communicative process," suggests that the holding in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) "implicates the First Amendment by the nature of the identity it seeks to protect," and thus may provide the wedge needed to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Alaska Civil Liberties Union ex. rel. Carter v. Alaska [122 P.3d 781 (Alaska, 2005)] struck down a provision which limited public employee benefits to spouses. Carter is significant because it was the first state court decision which extended public employee benefits to same-sex couples in a state with a marriage amendment. Lobsinger first explores the history of Alaskan laws pertaining to same-sex couples. He then analyzes whether Carter may act as a model for other states who must navigate between rights for same-sex couples and state DOMAs.

This collection of four pieces was originally presented as an AALS Workshop on the Solomon Amendment in the aftermath of Rumsfeld v. FAIR, 547 U.S. 47 (2006). Martha Ertman begins with a brief introduction to the issue. Joan Schaffner next uses events at the George Washington University Law School to ask "To what extent should student organizations be bound by the regulations that govern the GW placement office regarding military recruitment?" She believes that the "student interest in equal protection outweighs the student interest in employment," and that the FAIR decision "requires that law schools provide equal access but not equal treatment." James G. Leipold, Executive Director of NALP, reports results of a survey of law school responses, and offers three suggestions "for what law schools can and should do." Finally, the most personal account comes from Shalanda H. Baker, who tells of her expulsion from the military under DADT and being ordered to repay the costs of her Air Force Academy education.

Transcript of proceedings from March 2007 Harvard conference on legal issues related to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding military service members. There were several panel discussions among activists, legal scholars, military veterans and advocates. Topics include the impact of Lawrence v. Texas and the degree of judicial deference to the military concerning personnel policies.

How much money does it cost to replace homosexual service members who are separated under the military’s homosexual conduct policy? Two recent reports attempted to answer this question, and drew dramatically different conclusions. The Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker, prepared this report to explain the difference between the two reports. The first report, released in 2005 by GAO, estimated the costs from 1994-2003 at $190.5 million. The second report, released in 2006 by the University of California Blue Ribbon Commission, estimated costs for the same period at $363.8 million. Mr. Walker explains that the Commission’s estimate was larger because it included training costs for Marines, medical workers, and officers, and the cost of separation travel. Also, the Commission included infrastructure costs, which the GAO claims is a constant figure regardless of the number of enlistees who complete their contracts.

This article provides an overview of the DADT policy, emphasizing its practical impact on gay service members and their families. It addresses questions of employee benefits, recognition of same-sex relationships, adoption of children and same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. It argues that DADT damages LGBT service members, their units and the nation’s security.