[Right Wing Professor]

First, Nebraska has a hate crimes law that treats gay victims differently from straight victims.

Point out which provision of the law does that.

Under that law, if a gay persons says that he is gay, then he is expelled from the military.

Nope. and I quote

      That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual
      or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further
      finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set
      forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that
      he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in,
      has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual
      acts.

Where does it say that it only applies to 'gay people' who state they are homosexual or bisexual?

If you're going to cite the statute (which is good) it's pretty silly to misrepresent what the statute says, since any fool can check that in five minutes.

[MikeJ75]

I posted hate crimes laws as an example of laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation because I believe that those laws do, in fact, provide preferential treatment to gay and lesbian victims, even if the laws appear to be facially neutral. If you are saying that hate crime laws are not a form of reverse sexual-orientation discrimination, I will concede.

With regard to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," you have incisively zeroed in on the operative section. I will repost the quote that you kindly provided above from subsection (b)(2):

That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

In reading that section, though, you must be mindful of those pesky definitions, specifically the definition of "homosexual" in subsection (f)(1):

The term "homosexual" means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms "gay" and "lesbian".

Putting those together, you can see that anyone who is gay and who admits that he is gay is automatically presumed to have a propensity to engage in homosexual acts. So what "homosexuals" are eligible to make a showing that they do not have a propensity to engage in homosexual acts? The answer is straight persons who engage in homosexual acts. Klinger strikes out again!

The military interprets the act exactly as I have described. When someone states that he is gay, he is discharged without an additional investigation of whether the he has a propensity to engage in homosexual acts, unless the military suspects that he is really straight and is just making the statement to avoid service.

Sticking with your assertion that there are no laws anywhere in the country that treat gays and straights differently? There are less subtle examples. In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear (and thus allowed to remain in effect) an amendment to Cincinnati's charter, which prohibited the city from adopting any rule that confers protected status on the basis of homosexual, bisexual or lesbian orientation:

The city of Cincinnati and its various Boards and Commissions may not enact, adopt, enforce or administer any ordinance, regulation, rule or policy which provides that homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, status, conduct or relationship constitutes, entitles, or otherwise provides a person with the basis to have any claim of minority or protected status, quota preference or other preferential treatment.

You can read it online here. Note that the city charter does not prohibit preferential treatment based on heterosexual orientation. So it treats gays and straights differently.