Under a particularity thesis, many instances of anti-gay discrimination might violate the Equal Protection Clause but under a different analysis than that which applies to a standard male-dominance theory of sex discrimination.
On the other hand, Gaylaw documents an extensive history of anti-gay discrimination, much of which has been independent of gender-role enforcement.
Although Eskridge does not lay out his constitutional method, a definite pattern emerges: he collects passages from the Supreme Court's decisions, restates them as a general principle, applies that general principle to invalidate one or another form of anti-gay discrimination by government, and then cites social science studies to reassure everyone that no real harm will be done.
A major contribution of Gaylaw is its linkage of the Court's concern about anti-gay animus with the history of anti-gay discrimination in the law.
Eskridge also links anti-gay discrimination to sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause, focusing particularly on why federal and state bans on gay marriage are a form of sex discrimination analogous to the race discrimination inherent in unconstitutional anti-miscegenation laws.
This approach reduces homosexuality to gender rebellion and treats anti-gay discrimination as a wholly-owned subsidiary of sex discrimination.
military has refused to comply with university policy because the federal statute known as "Don't ask, don't tell" specifically authorizes anti-gay discrimination.
Today, we should come together again to demand that the university not support a government that institutionalizes anti-gay discrimination and harassment under "Don't ask, don't tell.
Harvard should invest in national, state, and local organizations that are fighting anti-gay discrimination and harassment on the front lines, and--along with its sister institutions--should hire a team of lobbyists, as it does on other matters of importance to it, to oppose the Solomon Amendment and "Do n't ask, don't tell.