The Military's Exclusion of Homosexuals: An Indefensible Policy by Gail Brooke Goldman & Berylin Tancer Goldman and Tancer argue that the military's current policy barring homosexuals from serving in the armed forces is more threatening to constitutional interests of free speech, due process and privacy than were past regulations discriminating against service members according to race. The military directive against homosexual service, repeatedly enforced by the courts, justifies military disqualification procedures that are deliberately invasive of a person's thoughts, actions and speech. In enforcing the directive, the courts have continually deferred to the overriding interests of the military. The Supreme Court has adhered to the doctrine that "no military organization can function without strict discipline and regulation that would be unacceptable in a civilian setting." Concerns of military security curtail individual protections typically afforded by the constitution. Consequently, challenges to the ban based on First Amendment or Due Process have had little success. The authors argue that the absence of constitutional redress for military exclusion may create an equal protection defense for homosexuals as a group. To succeed with this approach, it would be necessary for homosexuals to be recognized as a "suspect class," thereby requiring the court to apply a heightened level of scrutiny to the military's regulation. Homosexuals, as a group, possess the characteristics typical of a suspect class including a history of discrimination caused by an immutable trait and a lack of political and legal power to redress the discrimination. The military's directive would not withstand a strict scrutiny review because the ban relies on ambiguous arguments. Accordingly, to furnish long term solutions, future court decisions on this issue should turn to the Equal Protection Clause.