Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?  (Read 23779 times)

tide

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
« Reply #60 on: March 13, 2008, 05:36:30 PM »

karipidis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Solomon Amendment & DADT
« Reply #61 on: March 20, 2008, 04:26:51 PM »

Military homophobia has always been somewhat of a paradox. Sex between soldiers is officially strictly forbidden, unofficially tolerated (as long as it does not become public knowledge and the 'offenders' retain their official heterosexual identity), and unconsciously encouraged, by forcing men to live together in close quarters without any substantial privacy, by limiting their access to female partners and by promoting close friendships. Marines in many ways are in reverse drag -- the uniforms, the meticulous attention to detail about image and appearance, the exaggeration of the gender-specific attributes. It all makes sense.


The Solo mon Amendment and Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy =  Same Problem, Different Victims.



Like the Solomon Amendment, DADT purports on its face to limit no more than expression. Just as law schools are asked to welcome discriminatory recruiters but maintain a fully inclusive identity, non-heterosexual service members are asked to pretend to be straight (or to say nothing at all, and thereby acquiesce to presumed heterosexuality) but maintain a fully gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity. If this kind of feat is impossible for the homophobic Boy Scouts or antihomophobic law schools, it is certainly impossible for homosexuals themselves. "Being" gay is as much a matter of expression the decision to "come out" of the closet, once and then over and over again as it is about the sexual feelings you have or the sexual acts you perform. Expression is the crucible in which [gay] identity is formed. Solomon and DADT even resort to the same mechanics of expression/identity coercion. Just as the Solomon Amendment tells law schools that they can "choose" to keep their nondiscrimination policy intact so long as they're prepared to lose millions of dollars in federal funding, the military quasi-ban tells present and would-be servicemembers that they can "choose" to come out so long as they're prepared to lose their federal jobs. In both instances the choice is arguably illusory and neither one is it fair, honest, or dignified for either the coercer or the coerced.
Acta est fabula.

mgkoefod

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
« Reply #62 on: March 20, 2008, 05:02:55 PM »
tag

A l m a

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
« Reply #63 on: March 23, 2008, 03:53:25 PM »

synchronicity

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Obama -- Military Service? Sorry! But my Grandpa was a veteran!
« Reply #64 on: May 27, 2008, 10:36:46 AM »
Obama's been criticized for not having served in the military service.



He responded: "I will cede to no one the ability to talk about veterans issues. My grandfather was a veteran. Those veterans benefits helped my grandparents to raise my mother. I have veterans throughout the state of Illinois that I've been fighting for since I came into the United States Senate."

nmla

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Solomon Amendment & DADT
« Reply #65 on: May 27, 2008, 11:40:35 AM »

Military homophobia has always been somewhat of a paradox. Sex between soldiers is officially strictly forbidden, unofficially tolerated (as long as it does not become public knowledge and the 'offenders' retain their official heterosexual identity), and unconsciously encouraged, by forcing men to live together in close quarters without any substantial privacy, by limiting their access to female partners and by promoting close friendships. Marines in many ways are in reverse drag -- the uniforms, the meticulous attention to detail about image and appearance, the exaggeration of the gender-specific attributes. It all makes sense.


The Solo mon Amendment and Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy =  Same Problem, Different Victims.



Like the Solomon Amendment, DADT purports on its face to limit no more than expression. Just as law schools are asked to welcome discriminatory recruiters but maintain a fully inclusive identity, non-heterosexual service members are asked to pretend to be straight (or to say nothing at all, and thereby acquiesce to presumed heterosexuality) but maintain a fully gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity. If this kind of feat is impossible for the homophobic Boy Scouts or antihomophobic law schools, it is certainly impossible for homosexuals themselves. "Being" gay is as much a matter of expression the decision to "come out" of the closet, once and then over and over again as it is about the sexual feelings you have or the sexual acts you perform. Expression is the crucible in which [gay] identity is formed. Solomon and DADT even resort to the same mechanics of expression/identity coercion. Just as the Solomon Amendment tells law schools that they can "choose" to keep their nondiscrimination policy intact so long as they're prepared to lose millions of dollars in federal funding, the military quasi-ban tells present and would-be servicemembers that they can "choose" to come out so long as they're prepared to lose their federal jobs. In both instances the choice is arguably illusory and neither one is it fair, honest, or dignified for either the coercer or the coerced.


Interesting, tagging it!
T stands for Time.

multiplechoice

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
« Reply #66 on: August 02, 2008, 10:35:41 PM »
Military homophobia has always been somewhat of a paradox. Sex between soldiers is officially strictly forbidden, unofficially tolerated (as long as it does not become public knowledge and the 'offenders' retain their official heterosexual identity), and unconsciously encouraged, by forcing men to live together in close quarters without any substantial privacy, by limiting their access to female partners and by promoting close friendships. Marines in many ways are in reverse drag -- the uniforms, the meticulous attention to detail about image and appearance, the exaggeration of the gender-specific attributes. It all makes sense.



"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" :: An Interesting Book

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4gQv19gbqL0


I guess you all know by now that if there were one person out there who believes in the power of word - that's me. Yet I am perplexed how it is possible that a man like Merritt can settle for nothing more than this ..
[Referring to a glass of water:]
I mixed this myself. Two parts H, one part O. I don't trust anybody!

latvia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Solomon Amendment & DADT
« Reply #67 on: January 27, 2009, 11:55:47 AM »

The Solo mon Amendment and Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy =  Same Problem, Different Victims.



Like the Solomon Amendment, DADT purports on its face to limit no more than expression. Just as law schools are asked to welcome discriminatory recruiters but maintain a fully inclusive identity, non-heterosexual service members are asked to pretend to be straight (or to say nothing at all, and thereby acquiesce to presumed heterosexuality) but maintain a fully gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity. If this kind of feat is impossible for the homophobic Boy Scouts or antihomophobic law schools, it is certainly impossible for homosexuals themselves. "Being" gay is as much a matter of expression the decision to "come out" of the closet, once and then over and over again as it is about the sexual feelings you have or the sexual acts you perform. Expression is the crucible in which [gay] identity is formed. Solomon and DADT even resort to the same mechanics of expression/identity coercion. Just as the Solomon Amendment tells law schools that they can "choose" to keep their nondiscrimination policy intact so long as they're prepared to lose millions of dollars in federal funding, the military quasi-ban tells present and would-be servicemembers that they can "choose" to come out so long as they're prepared to lose their federal jobs. In both instances the choice is arguably illusory and neither one is it fair, honest, or dignified for either the coercer or the coerced.


Interesting juxtaposition between the two I'd say!

show my IP

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
« Reply #68 on: January 27, 2009, 12:04:52 PM »
What's so "interesting" about it, latvi? It's only natural to juxtapose the two of them.

show my IP

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Join Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity -- Bad Idea?
« Reply #69 on: January 27, 2009, 12:05:46 PM »
What's so "interesting" about it, latvi? It's only natural to juxtapose the two of them.