I commed you on your Grutter and VMI views. At least you're consistent. I somehow doubt FAIR and the law schools opposed those decisions, not to mention many other similar ones.

You're wrong about free exercise. If I'm Muslim I can't demand to be released from a mission or any other army assignment beacuse I have to pray 5 times a day or I can't demand to keep my beard. If I'm a Jew I can't refuse a mission on saturday or demand that I can wear a kippah or tallis in all missions. There are many religious exercises that are impinged on by the military.

You say physical strength is a good enough reason. There are many men that may be weaker than a given woman. And if physical strength is needed, why isn't moral strength needed? Surely the soldier who lacks any moral strength and purpose is not a desired outcome. Moral cohesion and unit morale is an integral and vital part of military operatons. If the soldier lacks moral standing his physical traits are worthless. And I think McCulloch clearly shows that Congress has extremely wide latitude in reaching that dtermination.

You write: There's an arguable speech case, but not a particularly convincing one. No one things that if you are drafted that it means you are in favor of being drafted, or of military service in general Hello? No reasonable person would think that merely because the JAG officer shows up at a job fair that the law school approves of all aspects of the military or its DADT policy. It's just not rational to think so.

As for claim about exclusion, if i was a jew and the military said that all jews are exempt from the draft or all lacks are exempt, I'd hae no problem, and even welcome it. How many gays had their lives saved by not being drafted in WW2, Korea, or the Nam?

Additionally, I would point out that "Don't ask don't tell" does not in fact bar homosexuals from serving in the military. Instead it requires that they keep that aspect of their life private and they cannot be questioned about it. There are many other aspects of one's private life that they submit to the military when they join as well. And the Constitution does not provide for "free exercise of one's sexual proclivities"

Admittedly it's not the best policy around, but let's stick with baby-steps as we've gotten past the active investigation of potential homosexuals to a stance of toleration. A number of years from now we may see it be relaxed completely. This similar to the "all deliberate speed" language from Brown. If it was good enough for Brown, it's good enough for FAIR. Finally, as others have pointed out on the net the colleges are unfairly demonizing the military when it was Congress that enacted the law in question. It sholud really have been US v FAIR, not Rumsfeld v FAIR.