Gay Rights Law and Public Policy / Susan Gluck Mezey

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Gay Rights Law and Public Policy / Susan Gluck Mezey MEZEY LAW • POLITICS “Queers in Court is an excellent history of gay rights litigation in the U.S. It is thorough and yet readable. It covers topics ranging from marriage to the military, it covers them over an entire cen- tury of American history, it appreciates their nuances, and it places litigation in the context of pub- lic opinion. Queers in Court would be useful in a college or law school classroom and it would also be good company on a long plane flight. In one volume, it provides a solid, well-rounded, easily- QUEERS IN COURT digested introduction to all of gay law.” —William Rubenstein, UCLA School of Law; founding director, Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law; and former director, ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project “I learned a lot from reading Queers in Court, and expect to consult it many times. The book is QUEERS IN COURT must reading for students of gay and lesbian politics, but it will also be useful for anyone inter- ested in social movements in the American courts. It provides that rare balance of a broad per- spective that still includes all of the details specialists require.” —Clyde Wilcox, Georgetown University “Queers in Court is a meticulously researched survey of gay rights cases in state and federal courts over the last fifty years. Susan Gluck Mezey provides a comprehensive and richly detailed reference that is indispensable to understanding the interplay in American policymaking among judges, other legal and political elites, and public opinion. A truly enlightening book.” —Daniel R. Pinello, author of Gay Rights and American Law and America’s Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage SUSAN GLUCK MEZEY is professor of political science and assistant vice president for research at Loyola University Chicago. For orders and information please contact the publisher GAY RIGHTS LAW ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. A wholly owned subsidiary of ISBN-13: 978-0-7425-4931-9 The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. ISBN-10: 0-7425-4931-3 AND PUBLIC POLICY LITTLEFIELD 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200 90000 ROWMAN & Lanham, Maryland 20706 9 780742 549319 1-800-462-6420 • www.rowmanlittlefield.com SUSAN GLUCK MEZEY ᳚ Queers in Court QUEERS IN COURT Gay Rights Law and Public᳚ Policy Susan Gluck Mezey ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. Published in the United States of America by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.rowmanlittlefield.com Estover Road Plymouth PL6 7PY United Kingdom Copyright © 2007 by Susan Gluck Mezey All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo- copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Mezey, Susan Gluck, 1944- Queers in court : gay rights law and public policy / Susan Gluck Mezey. p. cm. ISBN-13: 978-0-7425-4931-9 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-7425-4931-3 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN-13: 978-0-7425-4932-6 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-7425-4932-1 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Gay rights—United States. 2. Gays—Legal status, laws, etc.—United States. 3. Homosexuality—Law and legislation—United States. I. Title. KF4754.5.Z9M49 2007 346.7301'3—dc22 2006034321 Printed in the United States of America ™ °° The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. I dedicate this book to Rebecca and Norah in the hope that when they grow up, the world will be more tolerant of diversity. ᳚ Contents Acknowledgments ix Table of Cases xi Introduction 1 CHAPTER 1 Forging Gay Rights Activism 15 CHAPTER 2 Litigating Equality and Privacy Rights 45 CHAPTER 3 Struggling over Same-Sex Marriage 87 CHAPTER 4 Contesting Inequality in the Military 135 CHAPTER 5 Challenging Employment Discrimination 189 CHAPTER 6 Conclusion 229 References 239 General Index 257 Index of Cases 263 About the Author 269 vii ᳚ Acknowledgments N fleshing out the plan of the book in its initial stages, I benefited from Iconversations as well as lengthy e-mail exchanges with Jay Barth. Jay also graciously agreed to read and comment on the entire draft of the manu- script, and I appreciate his suggestions, which helped to improve the book. In the research and writing of an earlier version of chapter 3, which was ini- tially presented as a paper at the 2005 American Political Science Association, I was ably assisted by Loyola University graduate students Nathaniel Gest and Mary Hakken-Phillips; they also helped in tracking down cases, con- gressional materials and other government documents, law review articles, and polling data for the other chapters. To the extent this analysis sheds light on the complex political, social, and legal issues involved here, I thank them for the role they played. Of course, no one other than myself is responsible for any errors. I want to thank Loyola University for giving me the time and resources to complete the book by granting me a leave of absence and supplying me with research funds. Within Loyola, law school librarian Julia Wentz helped immeasurably by facilitating access to the legal databases that are necessary to an analysis of litigation. Nora Englund was extremely accommodating in forwarding documents to me during my leave and providing lots of assis- tance throughout. And Chris Anzalone at Rowman & Littlefield has been great to work with from the time we first spoke at the Law & Society meet- ing in Chicago; I appreciate his support and encouragement throughout this project. Lynn Weber and the staff at Rowman & Littlefield have also been helpful to me. On a personal note, I am grateful as always to Michael Mezey, my hus- band and best friend, whose love and support helped make it possible for me to accomplish my writing during this leave of absence as well as every ix x | ACKNOWLEDGMENTS other time. The book would likely have been written anyway, but he played a crucial role in helping it get done on time and, hopefully, done well. My children, Jennifer Mezey and Jonathan Levy—proud parents of the lovely and irrepressible Rebecca—and Jason Mezey and Deirdre McMahon— equally proud parents of the delightful and adorable Norah—have made my life more fulfilling than I can begin to describe. They keep my focus on what is truly important, and my life would be incomplete without them. This book is dedicated to our youngest generation in the hope that many of the battles discussed in it will be resolved in favor of equal rights and dignity by the time they reach political and social consciousness. ᳚ Table of Cases A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966). Able v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 1038 (E.D.N.Y. 1994). Able v. United States, 44 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 1995) (1995a). Able v. United States, 1995 WL 116322 (E.D.N.Y.) (1995b). Able v. United States, 880 F. Supp. 968 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (1995c). Able v. United States, 88 F.3d 1280 (2d Cir. 1996). Able v. United States, 968 F. Supp. 850 (E.D.N.Y. 1997). Able v. United States, 155 F.3d 628 (2d Cir. 1998). Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982) (1982a). Adams v. Howerton, 458 U.S. 1111 (1982) (1982b). Adams v. Laird, 420 F.2d 230 (D.C. Cir. 1969). Adams v. Laird, 397 U.S. 1039 (1970). Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. Alaska, 122 P.3d 781 (Alaska 2005). American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee v. Darnell, 195 S.W.3d 612 (Tenn. 2006). Andersen v. King County, 2004 WL 1738447 (Wash. Super.). Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006). Anonymous v. Anonymous, 325 N.Y.S.2d 499 (N.Y. Sup. 1971). Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U.S. 697 (1986). Ashton v. Civiletti, 613 F.2d 923 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993). Baehr v. Miike, 910 P.2d 112 (Haw. 1996) (1996a). Baehr v. Miike, 1996 WL 694235 (Haw. Cir. Ct.) (1996b). Baehr v. Miike, 950 P.2d 1234 (Haw. 1997). Baehr v. Miike, 1999 LEXIS 391 (Haw). Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971). Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972). xi xii | TABLE OF CASES Baker v. Vermont, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999). Baker v. Wade, 553 F. Supp. 1121 (N.D. Tex. 1982). Baker v. Wade, 769 F.2d 289 (5th Cir. 1985). Baker v. Wade, 478 U.S. 1022 (1986). Beller v. Lehman, 452 U.S. 905 (1981). Beller v. Middendorf, 632 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1980). benShalom v. Marsh, 703 F. Supp. 1372 (E.D. Wis. 1989) (1989a). benShalom v. Marsh, 881 F.2d 454 (7th Cir. 1989) (1989b). benShalom v. Secretary of Army, 489 F. Supp. 964 (E.D. Wis. 1980). benShalom v. Secretary of Army, 776 F.2d 1049 (7th Cir. 1985). benShalom v. Secretary of the Army, 826 F.2d 722 (7th Cir. 1987). benShalom v. Stone, 494 U.S. 1004 (1990). Berg v. Claytor, 436 F. Supp. 76 (D.D.C. 1977). Berg v. Claytor, 591 F.2d 849 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Board of Directors of Rotary International v.
Recommended publications
  • PANEL TRANSCRIPT Recorded March 14, 2016 South by Southwest Interactive Festival Austin, Texas
    Transcript: America’s LGBT S pies – Secret Agents (of Change) PANEL TRANSCRIPT Recorded March 14, 2016 South by Southwest Interactive Festival Austin, Texas PARTICIPANTS Tracey Ballard – CIA Katrina Gossman – FBI / ODNI Kris Gill – NGA Rita Sampson - ODNI Rita Sampson: Good Afternoon. I’m Rita Sampson and I’m the Chief of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and we want to welcome you here today for the session on America’s LGBT spies, secret agents of change. I want to just let you know we are talking about the entire Intelligence Community, which is a collaboration of about 17 different intelligence agencies and today IC EEOD Chief Rita Sampson welcomes audience members we’re going to hear personal stories and to the “Secret Agents of Change” panel. perspectives from three of those agencies. But before we get going I also have the pleasure of introducing you to the number two person in the United States Intelligence Community and that is Stephanie O’Sullivan who has joined us here today from Washington DC to share some of her thoughts and perspectives. So if you will help me welcome Ms. O’Sullivan with a round of applause. Stephanie O’Sullivan: I am glad everybody is here this afternoon because I think we have some really important things to talk about. I asked Rita if I could say a few words and I won’t take longer than that because like you, I’m here to listen and learn even though I’ve heard some of these amazing stories before.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenging the Apartheid of the Closet: Establishing Conditions for Lesbian and Gay Intimacy, Nomos, and Citizenship, 1961-1981 William N
    Hofstra Law Review Volume 25 | Issue 3 Article 7 1997 Challenging the Apartheid of the Closet: Establishing Conditions for Lesbian and Gay Intimacy, Nomos, and Citizenship, 1961-1981 William N. Eskridge Jr. Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Eskridge, William N. Jr. (1997) "Challenging the Apartheid of the Closet: Establishing Conditions for Lesbian and Gay Intimacy, Nomos, and Citizenship, 1961-1981," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 25: Iss. 3, Article 7. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol25/iss3/7 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Eskridge: Challenging the Apartheid of the Closet: Establishing Conditions CHALLENGING THE APARTHEID OF THE CLOSET: ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS FOR LESBIAN AND GAY INTIMACY, NOMOS, AND CITIZENSHIP, 1961-1981 William N. Eskridge, Jr.* CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................... 819 I. PROTECTING PRIVATE GAY SPACES: DuE PROCESS AND FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS ....................... 828 A. Due Process Incorporationof the Bill of Rights (CriminalProcedure) ....................... 830 1. The Warren Court's Nationalization of the Rights of Criminal Defendants .............. 830 2. Criminal Procedural Rights as Protections for Homosexual Defendants ....... 832 3. Criminal Procedural Rights and Gay Power ..... 836 B. Substantive Due Process and Repeal or Nullification of Sodomy Laws (The Right to Privacy) .......... 842 C. Vagueness and Statutory Obsolescence ........... 852 1. Sodomy Laws ......................... 855 2. Lewdness and Sexual Solicitation Laws ....... 857 3.
    [Show full text]
  • LGBTQ+ Nondiscrimination Laws in Kentucky
    University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Electronic Theses and Dissertations 12-2017 LGBTQ+ nondiscrimination laws in Kentucky. Christopher M Wales University of Louisville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd Part of the American Politics Commons, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies Commons, Other Legal Studies Commons, Public Policy Commons, Social Policy Commons, and the Urban Studies Commons Recommended Citation Wales, Christopher M, "LGBTQ+ nondiscrimination laws in Kentucky." (2017). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 2874. https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/2874 This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LGBTQ+ NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS IN KENTUCKY By Christopher Michael Wales B.A. Northern Kentucky University, 2014 A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Louisville in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Public Administration Department of Public Administration University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky December 2017 LGBTQ+ NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS IN KENTUCKY By Christopher Michael Wales B.A. Northern Kentucky University, 2014 A Thesis Approved on November 16, 2017 by the following Thesis Committee: Dr. Janet Kelly, Chair Dr. Matthew Ruther Dr. Catherine Fosl ii DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to Carrie Donald, who inspired and encouraged me to pursue social justice, and whose guidance will be greatly missed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Middleborough Public Schools Does Not Discriminate in His Educational Activities Or
    Civil Rights Training and Compliance MIDDLEBOROUGH PUBLIC SCHOOLS What are Civil Rights? Civil rights are the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Acts of Congress. Civil rights refer to the fair and equitable treatment of all students and employees. Civil Rights Laws Title VII – Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ØRace, color, religion, sex, and national origin (limited English proficiency) ØSex based discrimination now encompasses sexual orientation and gender identity Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ØSex Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ØDisability Americans with Disabilities Act ØDisability Civil Rights Laws Continued Age Discrimination Act of 1975 ØAge Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 ØRace, color & national origin Food Stamp Act of 1977 ØRace, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, and disability Civil Rights Laws Continued Presidential action was influential in adding sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classifications. Presidential Executive Orders added classifications of discrimination when they included sexual orientation and gender identity in employment or security clearance: ØPresident Clinton’s Executive Order 12968 in 1995 involved security clearance and included sexual orientation ØPresident Clinton’s Executive Order 13087 in 1998 prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for the federal civilian workforce ØPresident Obama’s Executive Order 13672 in 2014 prohibits discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity in federal hiring and contracting practices Civil Rights Laws Continued President Obama added gender identity to the classifications of people protected by the EECO (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) in 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Orientation and the Federal Workplace
    SEXUAL ORIENTATION and the FEDERAL WORKPLACE Policy and Perception A Report to the President and Congress of the United States by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board MAY 2014 THE CHAIRMAN U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 1615 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20419-0001 The President President of the Senate Speaker of the House of Representatives Dear Sirs: In accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 1204(a)(3), it is my honor to submit this U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) report, Sexual Orientation and the Federal Workplace: Policy and Perception. The purpose of our study was to examine Federal employee perceptions of workplace treatment based on sexual orientation, review how Federal workplace protections from sexual orientation discrimination evolved, and determine if further action is warranted to communicate or clarify those protections. Since 1980, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management has interpreted the tenth Prohibited Personnel Practice (5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(10)), which bars discrimination in Federal personnel actions based on conduct that does not adversely affect job performance, to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. As this prohibition has neither been specifically expressed in statute nor affirmed in judicial decision, it has been subject to alternate interpretations. Executive Order 13087 prohibited sexual orientation discrimination in Federal employment but provided no enforceable rights or remedies for Federal employees who allege they are the victims of sexual orientation discrimination. Any ambiguity in the longstanding policy prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in the Federal workplace would be resolved by legislation making that prohibition explicit. Such legislation could grant Federal employees who allege they are victims of sexual orientation discrimination access to the same remedies as those who allege discrimination on other bases.
    [Show full text]
  • Transgender Military Service: a Guide to Implementation
    Transgender Military Service: A Guide to Implementation Brynn Tannehill Allyson Dylan Robinson Sue Fulton February, 2015 DRAFT – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION ©2015, SPARTA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………………….……..5 Background……………………………………………………………………….……..6 Chapter 1. Definitions……………………………………………………………...…10 Chapter 2. Medical Readiness and Health Care…………………………………11 Chapter 3. Privacy of Personal Information……………………………………...19 Chapter 4. Recruiting and Accession……………………..…………………...….20 Chapter 5. Recognizing Gender Changes………………………………………...23 Chapter 6. Facilities and Facility Use………………………………………….…..25 Chapter 7. Uniforms, Grooming, and Dress Codes…………………..….……..28 Chapter 8. Physical Fitness Standards…………………………………………...30 Chapter 9. Housing……………………………………………………………….…..32 Chapter 10. Non-Discrimination Policies…………………………………………34 Chapter 11. Leadership Best Practices…………………………………….……..37 Chapter 12. Related Civilian Sector Policies…………………………………….40 Chapter 13. Final Conclusions……………………………………………….…….52 References……………………………………………………………………………..54 Appendix A: Transgender Military Service: Frequently Asked Questions…63 Appendix B: Definitions…………………………………………………………......74 Appendix C: Medical Policies………………………………………………………78 Appendix D: Personal Information Policies………………………………….…..81 Appendix E: Recruiting and Accession Policies…………………………....…..84 Appendix F: Policies for Recognizing Gender Changes……………………....85 Appendix G: Facilities Policies…..………………………………………..……….90 Appendix H: Uniforms, Grooming, and
    [Show full text]
  • Because Defendants Challenge the Court's Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
    Case 2:08-cv-00881-TFM Document 31 Filed 10/31/08 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ABDEL MONIEM ALI EL-GANAYNI, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) 2:08-cv-881 ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) ENERGY and JEFFREY F. KUPFER, ) Acting Deputy Secretary of Department of ) Energy, ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before the Court is the MOTION TO DISMISS (Document No. 20) filed by Defendants United States Department of Energy and Jeffrey F. Kupfer, Acting Deputy Secretary (collectively, “DOE”). Plaintiff has filed a brief in opposition (Document No. 30). The Court conducted oral argument on October 14, 2008 and the motion is ripe for disposition. The Court is aware of the exigent circumstances claimed by Plaintiff and his pending request for injunctive relief.1 Factual Background Plaintiff challenges Defendants’ decision to revoke his security clearance on the basis of “national security.” The relevant facts, as set forth in the Complaint, will be taken as true at this stage of the case. Dr. El-Ganayni is a native-born Egyptian who came to the United States in 1980. In 1988 he became a United States citizen. Dr. El-Ganayni earned Masters and Ph.D. 1Because Defendants challenge the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, the instant motion must be resolved as a predicate to consideration of Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Document No. 11) and the parties’ cross-motions regarding discovery (Document Nos. 13, 21). Case 2:08-cv-00881-TFM Document 31 Filed 10/31/08 Page 2 of 21 degrees in physics, married an American citizen, was active in establishing an Islamic Mosque, the Islamic Center of Pittsburgh, and participated in other Muslim ministerial and charitable activities, all of which he disclosed appropriately to his employer.
    [Show full text]
  • LGBT History August
    Highlights of GLBT History for August and Quotes to Inspire Journaling SUMMER SCHOOL TEACHERS .... As you are planning your lessons for August, you may find it helpful to integrate some of the following, to infuse LGBTIQ/2-spirit* cultural awareness into the every day life of your classroom. Especially those teaching history, civics, social studies, family & consumer sciences, or language arts. The quotes will be useful in teaching writing skills. NOTE: You will find recent past email messages archived at http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/listserve/index.html and all of these monthly history messages are archived at http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/blackboard-history.html *LGBTIQ = Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Questioning and Queer. *Two-spirit = a term of honor to describe a Native American or other Indigenous LGBTIQ person, implying their special role as a spiritual bridge among genders. ***************************************************** August 2, 1907 - Gladys Bentley is born to a Trinidadian mom and an African-American dad. She would grow up to become a respected blues singer. Bentley was openly lesbian (a "bulldagger" in the parlance of the day) and even once told a gossip columnist she had married a woman. More at: http://www.queerculturalcenter.org/Pages/Bentley/BentleyBio.html August 2, 1924 - James Baldwin is born in Harlem. He would grow up to become a best-selling author and a respected voice in both the Civil Rights movement and, as an openly gay man, the movement for gay rights, as well. More at http://www.nathanielturner.com/jamesbaldwin.htm and http://www.365gay.com/lifestylechannel/intime/months/08-august/Baldwin.htm August 4, 1875 - Danish singer, actor, storyteller and playwright Hans Christian Andersen dies at age 70.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dying Policy on the Precipice
    California Western Law Review Volume 44 Number 2 Article 3 2008 Don't Ask, Don't Tell: A Dying Policy on the Precipice Robert I. Correales University of Nevada Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr Recommended Citation Correales, Robert I. (2008) "Don't Ask, Don't Tell: A Dying Policy on the Precipice," California Western Law Review: Vol. 44 : No. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol44/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CWSL Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Western Law Review by an authorized editor of CWSL Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Correales: Don't Ask, Don't Tell: A Dying Policy on the Precipice DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL: A DYING POLICY ON THE PRECIPICE ROBERT I. CORREALES* "When I Was in the Military, They Gave Me a Medal for Killing Two Men and a DischargeFor Loving One. "' Assistant Professor of Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. I wish to thank professors Annette Appell and Joan Howarth for their thoughtful comments, and my two wonderful research assistants Kareema Turner, and Jessica Goodey for their untiring efforts and their sharp editing pens. 1. Epitaph on the tombstone of Sergeant Leonard Matlovitch, a highly decorated sergeant in the United States Air Force, who spent nearly twelve years in the service. MARY ANN HUMPHREY, MY COUNTRY, MY RIGHT TO SERVE xxvii (1990). This article is dedicated to the fine men and women who comprise the membership of the Alexander Hamilton Post 448 of the American Legion.
    [Show full text]
  • Jeremiah A. Ho
    QUEER SACRIFICE IN MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP Jeremiah A. Ho ABSTRACT This Article interprets the Supreme Court’s decision, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, as a critical extension of Derrick Bell’s interest convergence thesis into the LGBTQ movement. Chiefly, Masterpiece reveals how the Court has been more willing to accommodate gay individuals who appear more assimilated and respectable—such as those who participated in the marriage equality decisions—than LGBTQ individuals who are less “mainstream” and whose exhibited queerness appear threatening to the heteronormative status quo. When assimilated same-sex couples sought marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, their respectable personas facilitated the alignment between their interests to marry and the Court’s interest in affirming the primacy of marriage. Masterpiece, however, demonstrates that when the litigants’ sexual identities seem less assimilated and more destabilizing to the status quo, the Court becomes much less inclined to protect them from discrimination and, in turn, reacts by reinforcing its interest to preserve the status quo—one that relies on religious freedoms to fortify heteronormativity. To push this observation further, this Article explores how such failure of interest convergence in Masterpiece extends Derrick Bell’s thesis on involuntary racial sacrifice and fortuity into the LGBTQ context—arguing that essentially Masterpiece is an example of queer sacrifice. Thus, using the appositeness of critical race thinking, this Article regards the reversal in Masterpiece as part of the contours of interest convergence, queer sacrifice, and fortuity. Such observations ultimately prompt the Article to propose specific liberationist strategies that the LBGTQ movement ought to adopt in forging ahead.
    [Show full text]
  • How Women's Integration Transformed the Army, 1964
    STROHMER, THERESE M., Ph.D. Soldiers, Not Wacs: How Women’s Integration Transformed the Army, 1964-1994. (2016) Directed by Lisa Levenstein. 380 pp. In 2016, the Secretary of Defense opened all ground combat jobs in the military to women, permitting work in a field that had been off limits to them since the inception of the Women’s Army Corps in 1948. Yet little is understood about female soldiers’ journey to attain these roles. This dissertation shows how the 2016 decision did not emerge out of nowhere; earlier generations had laid the foundation. That foundation reflected both advocacy and achievement on the part of military women to gain access to a range of noncombat jobs on the battlefield. Women’s integration into these positions changed the meaning of combat from a geographic space exposing soldiers to hostile action, to a soldier’s specific direct ground combat role attacking the enemy. Women’s integration fundamentally transformed the Army workplace. Between 1964 and 1994, their presence in the Army increased from one percent to thirteen percent. As their numbers grew, they increasingly infiltrated the leadership ranks; by 2016, over seventeen percent of Generals were women. Having women in these leadership positions meant they commanded men, established plans for war and led troops in battle. Many ordinary soldiers pushed for policies that enabled mothers to serve, allowed women access to professional military education, and they consistently forced the military to confront the problem of sexual violence. Lesbian soldiers consistently pushed the Army for inclusion, by 2010 their efforts resulted in the right of all homosexuals to serve openly.
    [Show full text]
  • Family Law and Gay and Lesbian Family Issues in the Twentieth Century David L
    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 1999 Family Law and Gay and Lesbian Family Issues in the Twentieth Century David L. Chambers University of Michigan Law School, [email protected] Nancy D. Polikoff American University Washington College of Law, [email protected] Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/1423 Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Family Law Commons, Sexuality and the Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Chambers, David L. "Family Law and Gay and Lesbian Family Issues in the Twentieth Century." N. Polikoff, co-author. Fam. L. Q. 33, no. 3 (1999): 523-42. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Family Law and Gay and Lesbian Family Issues in the Twentieth Century DAVID L. CHAMBERS* and NANCY D. POLIKOFF** At the beginning of the twentieth century, the phrase "homosexual family" or "lesbian family," if intelligible at all, would have seemed an oxymoron. Two men (or women) who openly broadcast that they were lovers and wanted to marry or adopt a child would have been jailed or hospitalized. By the end of the century, in many places in this country, the situation is quite different.
    [Show full text]