Ron Paul: Why I Changed My Mind on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Thursday’s 234-194 vote in the House to begin a process ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” attracted five Republican voters: Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.), Rep. Charles Djou (R-Ha.), Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.).

Ron Paul explained why he voted in favor of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell”:

Ron Paul: “I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual. To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense.” (Source)

Of the 13,500 members of the military who have been discharged under “don’t ask, don’t tell” more than 1,000 filled critical occupations, such as engineers and interpreters.

  • Barnicle

    I am national guard officer serving on active duty currently. I don’t think those who haven’t been in the military understand the culture in it. Frankly I can tell you that if I had an open homosexual under me I would remove him immediately. Not because of my personal sentiments, but for the mere sake of his safety.

    • Benjamin

      With all due respect for your service to our country, as well for your concerns, that is not a valid argument. What if I said someone should have stopped the colonists because the British army would shoot at them? The reality is, the road to liberty is forever under attack, and will from time to time be painted with blood.

      “I regret that I have but one life to give for my country.” — Nathan Hale

      I’m not trying to dramatize this issue. It seems such an insignificant one to me. And do we not have bigger problems, after all? Indeed we do. It seems many here would rather give in to a senseless rule rather than enforce real liberty. But homosexuality is not a crime, so they deserve to have their rights protected, which means government (and by extension, the military) cannot discriminate against them.

      But forget about the skin of the issue. It’s the principle of it all. The root of all problems in this country traces directly back to all of us. We’ve become a risk-averse culture, and won’t stand up to tyranny on a consistent basis. Where we don’t consider it a matter of our own personal values, tyranny is a “nessecary” evil to prevent more of the same.

      The left bars genuinely free markets and private property on the basis of “what the evil businesses and bible-totting morons would do” (a summary of their sentiment, imv, not my words)

      The right bar genuine live-and-let-live social harmony on the basis of “the slippery slope of the evil left”. They value it personally, but when it comes to extending it into full practice, they have a problem of one nature or another.

      I say again, this is never going to make things better. Drop all fears, and instead uphold liberty for all while enforcing the nessecary rules, or we will never be free again. We either uphold it for all, or we uphold it for no one.

      • Barnicle

        In theory I might agree with you. But the person who is on the ground is dealing with realities.

    • Machine

      Have we forgotten; “…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” and if necessary; “…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”

      Gay or straight, man or woman…nothing is safe about being a soldier. What pisses me of about the issue regarding gays in the milltary is how everyone hides behind politics and/or religion. Sexuality, sex, race…has nothing to do with ones ability, or right to serve their country if they so choose. To make such claims against a persons ability is to establish a racist and sexist form of seperatist elitism. Yes our millitary is certainly a well trained and obedient elite group, but it has nothing to do with being straight, white, or a male. It has everything, though, to do with a person willingness to bravely sacrafice themselves and defend what is held sacred in our country: Freedom, Democracy, Civil Rights, Humanity ( human rights), and last but not least Independence.

      Homosexuality is not some new 21st century trend; it has excisted since the begining of man. I wonder how many “fags” served our country during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, or WWII…Or in any war that our government declared and called upon Americans to serve THEIR country?

      Barnicle, why don’t you share with those who havn’t served in the military the as you call it “…culture in it”, so that they may better understand the hypocrisiy surounding gays in the military.

  • Brent


    Elaborating a bit more on “unintended consequences” you have to remember we have a country currently were the government picks and chooses which laws they obey and short of revolution there’s not much we can do about it. Laws that suit their ideological agenda they enforce rigorously. Those that don’t (i.e. most of the Constitution) they ignore. I believe allowing people who openly admit to being gay in the military will inevitably lead to them being found to also have the “right” to practice their homosexuality in the ranks and demand acceptance of their lifestyle in the name of “embraceing diversity”. To ask homosexuals to refrain from “expressing themselves” will likely come to be seen as an unreasonable suppression of “who they are.” Soliders who have moral objections to this portion of their diversity training will likely suffer damage to their careers and potential military discipline. As another poster pointed out, members of the military in practice have significantly less rights than a civilian citizen. You are obviously an individual who carefully weighs the issues, but you do seem to be quite naive on one front. You appear to assume the same rules that apply to straights will also apply to gays. Reality, of course, is there is ALWAYS a double standard when liberals are in charge. Just as with Affirmative Action in the military (which was mentioned earlier), there is one standard for whites and another for non-whites. Likewise, there is no reason not to believe that there will be one standard for gays, but another for non-gays. The same rules may apply on paper to both groups, but there is no reason to believe given the current administration that the rules will be equally applied.

    • Benjamin


      First, thank you for taking the time respond in rational and fair manner. Sometimes, I don’t know if this forum is being attacked by trolls or if people are just so upset over this issue. As to your concerns, all I can say is this…

      In another post, I pointed out that just because I can be robbed of my gold isn’t a reason to not remonitze gold. And I stress this again. We don’t allow soldiers to fight among themselves (express their differences in another way), we don’t allow them drunken behavior, disobeyiing orders… So there is no reason to allow gays to engage in that behavior while on base or on active duty. I know some will argue this or that, but that is where the line rightly belongs. There needs to be rules of discipline in the army, and if a homosexual can’t live with that, then they shouldn’t join. Let them be civilians, where they can live however they want (within the law).

      If the right thing is not done out of the concern as to how the far-left will push things, then we might as well all curl up and die, for we could only do nothing at all, for anything, out of the same fear. Why bother defending the Constitution? The left will only try to distort it. Why bother to speak up? The left will only ignore you. Why persecute someone for murder? The left will only let them free. We shouldn’t be so cowardly and irresponsible. The consequences of living that way is far worse than having to stand up to what the illiberal (in the classic sense) will undoubtedly try to get away with in the future.

      Liberty is eternal vigilence.

    • Machine

      So start a revolution…It works…That is what seperated us from the king.

  • Brent

    Looks like Ron might have just torpedoed his presidential bid. He COULD have beat Obama, but in order to do that he first must win the Republican nomination. To win the Republican nomination you need the support of Christian conservatives. Up until now, Ron certainly had the credentials to bring this substantial portion of the party into his tent. Most Christian conservatives (the rank-and-file, if not the talking heads) are generally live and let live in their views. The only two no-compromise issues are homosexuals in the military (“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was probably the only intelligent thing to come out of the Clinton administration) and abortion. As a socially conservative libertarian, Ron Paul’s prior support of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and opposition to Roe v. Wade made him a candidate that would certainly appeal a large portion of the base, but after this flip flop vote he’s probably sunk. I can certainly understand his rationale and this vote wouldn’t be a deal-breaker for me personally (although it does tick me off), but it’s just too slippery a slope and I don’t know if he considered the “law of unintended consequences” relating to the effects of overturning Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in practical implementation under a far-left liberal regime.


    • Benjamin

      Well, being president isn’t everything. Besides, I think Ron Paul is just fine where he is, a representative in the House. If there were more like him, the central bank wouldn’t be an issue.

      That said, I’m curious as to why this ticks you off. All the repeal of DADT means is that someone can’t be punished or discharged simply because their sexual orientation is known. It’s not like it allows them to fraternaize (to put it cleanly) in the showers or anything like that. It doesn’t allow them to go around chanting “I’m here, I’m queer, get used to it!”.

      So I’m going to assume you’re worried about persecution of religion. But what is the grounds for that? Anyone in the private sector can decide to complain all they want, on whatever grounds. But if you’re in the government or military, you keep it to yourself. I honestly don’t see what the problem is here, but I’m still open to the possibility that objection has a point. I just haven’t seen a good argument presented yet.

  • fred the protectionist

    “…a human characteristic – that the longer a man possesses an object, the more readily he grows tired of it. He craves something new: therefore one needs two parties. The one is in office, the other in opposition. When the one has played itself out, then the opposition party comes into power, and the party which has had its day is now in its turn the opposition. After twenty years the new party itself has once more played itself out and the game begins afresh. In truth this is a highly ingenious mill in which the interests of a nation are ground very small.”

    Yeah yeah, down with the 2 party system! Who’s with me? End the treadmill, vote 3rd party.

    • Citizen

      Don’t do it…
      A 3rd party simply splits the Conservative vote giving the Big Government Statists more power and eventually absolute control over our lives…
      Goodbye Liberty and Freedom

      • fred the protectionist


        You know if we’d all have your attitude we’d all still be voting for Whigs and Tories.

  • glen

    The real issue here is how easily Paul flipped. Who were these constituents? Man, he really got suckered on this deal.
    Economics??? Really, Dr. Paul? Antiviral therapy on special this week?
    He’s the only on who could win over Obama at this point, but to do that he needed the republican nomination, now he may as well forget it(very slim chance).
    Looks like another four years of Barach, sad to say.

    • fred the protectionist

      What part of “he’s a Libertarian” don’t you get.

  • fred the protectionist

    Well if the Libertarians ever want to get their ‘violent revolution’ to ‘overthrow the government’, they need to weaken the US army first; and that means letting muslim radicals, fags, cripples, women and law-yers run the military. This way, when the ‘violent revolution’ civil war happens, and the Libertarians are in their pickup trucks with their confederate battle flags waving in the wind going “YEEEEHAAAW!” they can actually have a chance against the Union Army this time.

  • Ben

    Oh, and another thing. I see a lot of people throwing around that argument that “bigots” are denying “gays” (homosexuals, actually) their constitutional rights.

    Serving in the military is not a right. Not even close. When you join, there is a code of conduct you have to follow. If you don’t follow it, you can be disciplined in any number of ways, including discharge. People keep saying that “gays” should be allowed to serve just like anyone else. And they can. They just have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

    Also, there are no sexual rights in the constitution. Not anywhere. There is the right to practice your religion, on the other hand. But no sexual right because the founders intended none.

  • Stuart

    I do not understand how a true libertarian can be against Ron Paul’s vote. I’m extremely happy to learn he changed his mind. All libertarians seem to want is no government. Except when it comes to gay issues.

    How is this scenario right? A girl discovers she is a lesbian while in the army and lets it be known. She then has to be discharged, just for that. She didn’t have sex with another officer or sexually harass anyone, she just discovered she was gay. How is that libertarian to want her thrown out of the army for that? That’s oppressive government at her best.

    Should she have kept her mouth shut? That seems like liberty doesn’t it? The government forcing you to keep quiet about something. First Amendment! (unless your gay in the military) Secondly it is unhealthy to keep a secret like that. It creates stress and anxiety and would probably make her a less effective soldier.

    From my, what I consider to a libertarian point of view, DADT should be repealed.

    • B.D.Harper

      Agree with your entire post 100%.
      If you are a real libertarian, you should be against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
      It doesn’t matter what speculation you have of the effect on the military’s effectiveness, being a libertarian means supporting all people’s liberties regardless of what they choose to do with them. If they aren’t hurting you with it, they have a right to do it.

  • Yvonne

    We have to remember that this government WANTS to divide us over moral issues.
    It’s an old propoganda trick.
    Divide and conquer.
    If we’re fighting each other we can’t fight them.
    If you think it through this is actually the government encouraging us to get involved with ”locker room talk”.
    It’s overstepping.
    It’s petty.
    It’s a diversion.
    We all need to be able to talk about ourselves to other adults if the millieu is appropriate.
    Men can handle themselves. I don’t think some big strong military man needs to feel that a homosexual can violate him.
    I don’t want it around my little ones because it’s my right to say ”that’s innapropriate” and I’ll call 911 if you don’t back off with your nasty talk.
    On the other hand: If it’s grown men we should stay out of the conversion
    As long as the Christian men have their right to say ”I don’t know if I’m on board with that you know the Bible does say it’s wrong…”
    Government needs to stay out of it.

    • Ben

      “As long as the Christian men have their right to say ‘I don’t know if I’m on board with that you know the Bible does say it’s wrong…'”

      Yvonne, I’d like to know if you’ve ever been in the military. Nothing wrong if you haven’t, I’m just wondering. I won’t assume either way, but your comments indicate to me that you have not.

      The military is not just a 9 to 5 job. They have broad powers over the conduct of servicemen, and yes they tell them to shut up about all sorts of things. There isn’t a doubt in my mind that Christians will not be able to express their rejection of homosexuality, no matter how delicately they phrase it. This will be an automatic EO complaint which is an automatic career killer and an automatic disciplinary action. Furthermore, simply keeping quiet may not be enough. There will probably be times when soldiers will be required to AFFIRM homosexual behavior.

      I suspect that the military will handle this exactly the same way it handles affirmative action. AA is the official policy of the military and it is not up for debate. You may not suggest in any terms that a fellow soldier was promoted because of his or her face or gender. You may not object to the policy in general. If you don’t like it, you can shut your damned pie hole. Of course, plenty of people grumble behind closed doors, but you’d better make sure the wrong people aren’t listening.

      That’s how the military works. The idea behind it is that you will follow orders (in this case, the order to shut up). If you don’t like it, then don’t reenlist. The only probelm is that many servicemen will do exactly that–vote with their feet and leave the military entirely. A recent Military Times poll revealed that ten percent of the military says they will definitely not reenlist if DADT is repealed. An additonal fourteen percent said it will cause them to consider not reenlisting. That’s an appaling drain on our armed forces.

      If you think that this will go through and our servicemen will be able to speak their mind, express their religious beliefs, you are wrong.

      • Benjamin

        “The military is not just a 9 to 5 job. They have broad powers over the conduct of servicemen, and yes they tell them to shut up about all sorts of things….You may not suggest in any terms that a fellow soldier was promoted because of his or her face or gender. You may not object to the policy in general. If you don’t like it, you can shut your damned pie hole. Of course, plenty of people grumble behind closed doors, but you’d better make sure the wrong people aren’t listening…. That’s how the military works. The idea behind it is that you will follow orders (in this case, the order to shut up). ”

        Just curious… Where in the Constitution does it say soldiers do not have the same rights as citizens?

        “A recent Military Times poll revealed that ten percent of the military says they will definitely not reenlist if DADT is repealed. An additonal fourteen percent said it will cause them to consider not reenlisting. That’s an appaling drain on our armed forces. ”

        (shrugs) So be it. Our standing army is over-sized anyhow, and Ron Paul believes it could do with some downsizing.

        • Ben

          The Constitution doesn’t say that soldiers don’t have the same rights as civilians. But the oath of enlistment states that soldiers will follow the orders of the President and officers appointed above them. If they order you to shut up, then you must obey. It’s not optional.

          The reason I mention this is because Yvonne seems to think that homosexuals in the military are no threat to any one’s rights so long as people are still allowed to voice objections to their behavior. The naivete of the statement nearly knocked me over. The right to object to homosexuality will be the first thing to go, guaranteed! So, does that mean that she will finally admit that homosexuals ARE a threat to the right to voice objections?

          By the way, even in civilian jobs, even in jobs which require no oath swearing to follow orders, your employer can tell you to shut the hell up while on the clock. The thing with soldiers is that soldiers are on duty even when they’re off duty.

          Women in the military offer the perfect example. Personally, I found women in the military to be an absolute catastrophy. I could go into detail about why I believe that, but that’s not the point of the post. The broader point I’m trying to make is that I was not permitted under any circumstances to imply that women in the military was bad policy. If I so much as breathed a word against women in the military, disciplinary action would follow. Don’t even get me started on the various racial issues. Even general criticism of affirmative action is off limits because it’s “racist”.

          Ron Paul knows this too. He’s a veteran. And yet he voted aginst DADT anyway, knowing full well that people with religious objections against homosexuality will be silenced. A vote against DADT is a vote against our troops’ right to speak.

        • Benjamin

          Ben said: “Ron Paul knows this too. He’s a veteran. And yet he voted aginst DADT anyway, knowing full well that people with religious objections against homosexuality will be silenced. A vote against DADT is a vote against our troops’ right to speak.”

          No it isn’t. You said so yourself. Orders is orders. And if the order is to shut up, you shut up. So you can’t blame the repealing of DADT (and by extension, Ron Paul) for silencing soldiers. That’s simply the rules of the army, which you said you agree with.

      • Yvonne

        OK. Honestly I think you win. I have never been in the army. I get the AA argument.
        I think you’re worried that DADT will force others to be silenced and honestly, I think you have a point.
        I do still think that we still have to stick together and still support Ron Paul. These moral issues that are deliberately being thrust upon him and his son are a deliberate attempt by their opponents to divert attention from what’s really important.
        Too much government.
        Too many taxes.
        An evil federal reserve.
        I still want to support Ron Paul but yeh….I see your point.

  • fred the protectionist

    See, Libertarians = Liberal.

    • fred the protectionist

      Social Liberals, and ‘Trade Liberalization’.

      Libertarians are mega Liberals. The definition of Liberal is not, “Wrong Guy.”

    • Ben


      Real libertarians aren’t liberals. Just this current crop that worships Ron Paul.

      • fred the protectionist

        Real Libertarians are more Liberal then Ron Paul.

  • glen

    The guys almost 80 y.o. and had a formed opinion on the issue and then he gets a revelation because of several calls and visits from constituents–yeah, right!

    How about getting people in the military that like the idea of having sex with children? Not actually having sex with children but like the idea of it. Or how about their sister? Two consenting adults, that OK isn’t it? Or how about your own child? The parent doesn’t object and the parent knows best–not the government! Apply that to your dog as well–doggie likes it–jumps right into bed!
    This crap will come along in time, but thats OK, because we’re all so tolerant and certainly not incestaphobic or beastialityaphobic.
    Nambla, 12 y.o. girls in Holland. Moral breakdown of society.

    But back to the real issue…Paul flipped on his stance because of gay pressure and tries to excuse it with economics. Come on! When’s the next one coming?

    • Yvonne

      I don’t believe Ron Paul changed his moral beliefs I just think that, like myself, he is realizing that the government is too intrusive and if we give them this inch they will find an excuse to take a yard.
      You are right about boundaries. Of course grown men should not be talking to children about sex. I was horrified when school teachers were teaching about things that some of my friends’ children would refer to as ”icky”. But with DADT if we allow the government to tell grown men what they are allowed to say to other adults about their sex preference then the day may come when I’ll be silenced about my religious preference.

      • Ben

        Quite the opposite. You (or rather, service members) will be silenced concerning your religious prefence when homosexuals are allowed to serve openly. Your religious beliefs will be grounds for disciplinary action and discharge.

        This is not about getting government out of people’s lives. That’s the red herring. These are members of the military and they must follow a code of conduct that the rest of us civilians do not. For example, it would be a great abuse of government power to prohibit citizens from wearing earrings. It is not, however a great abuse of government power to prohibit soldiers from wearing earrings. Ditto hairstyles, tattos, even clothing. The military also prohibits other sexual behaviors including adultery.

        If you’re worried about the threat to your religous freedom, look in the direction of the very aggressive anti-religious secularists. I assure you, DADT never has absolutely no bearing on how you can worship.

        • Benjamin

          Well, Ben, if that is what happens then we call government on it and remind them that people have a right to say they don’t approve of homosexuality (whether on religious or whatever grounds).

          What you’re arguing is basically like saying we shouldn’t remonitize gold because someone might rob me and take all my gold. Just doesn’t work.

  • Jack

    Way to go Ron! It’s high time we get the government out of deciding moral standards for people, and give the power back to the population!

  • Ben

    Ayn Rand said it best:

    “[T]o proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians… is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print.”

    Furthermore, she stated that: “Homosexuality is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it’s disgusting.”

    That was the traditional position of libertarians. A new breed of neo-libertarian (or as I call them pseudo-libertarians) has twisted the philosophy to mean that Libertarians should always come to the aid homosexuals and against the religious. If that’s your point of view, please stop calling yourself a libertarian. That’s not what you are. Call yourself something else–anything else–but please don’t call yourself a libertarian.

    Ron Paul used to have the courage to stand up to these people. I guess he just doesn’t have the guts anymore. Tell me–was he less of a libertarian back then? I don’t think so.

    • Benjamin

      When did Ron Paul ever attack religion and force homosexuality on anyone?

      Look, I know you’re a homophobe, which is fine, but realize that phobia by it’s nature implies irrational thinking. And since you think Ron Paul and these “neo libertarians” are out to get you… Well, there ya go. They’re not, you think they are… Irrational.

      As for Ayn Rand saying IT, that was just her opinion, her own values.

      Government, on the other hand, cannot show such discrimination. See my post to Tommy, below. Barring a recruit on the basis of mere potential problems is akin to treating someone as guilty until proven innocent. And _that_ by far would be the most disgusting thing is government was allowed to act that way.
      And seeing as how anyone is potentialy a morale/discipline problem, it would be foolish for the army to practice such a policy.

    • Grant

      Well said, Benjamin. On top of that, Ron Paul doesn’t agree with Ayn Rand on everything. Plus, who said she gets to decide what the Libertarian platform is? FYI, Ron is a Republican.

      • Benjamin

        “FYI, Ron is a Republican.”

        I don’t know what Dr Paul is anymore. All I know for sure is that he truly fights to uphold the Constitution, says what he means, means what he says, and he’s been doing it for a long time. Good enough for me! 🙂

        Oh, and thanks for the comment.

    • fred the protectionist

      “Ayn Rand said…” So let it be written, so let it be done.

      All hail Ayn Rand, the Goddess of the Anarchists and Libertarians. Bow down on your knees to the great infallible Ayn Rand; the Soviet Jew turned Anarchist (now there’s a leap, not).

  • Tommy

    As a longtime supporter of Ron Paul, who emptied my bank account to see he was elected or at least noticed, and continue to help his son, Rand, I was extremely disappointed with Ron Paul’s vote. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has nothing to do with unjust discrimination. There are not different water fountains, buses, park benches, for homosexuals.

    This is an efficiency issue and a power directly given to the congress. Raise and form an army, and make sure it runs properly. I could think of no worse place to have people sexually attracted to each other than in boot camp, training, or battlefield.

    I compare it to if I (male) was able to join an all female platoon. Hell, why shouldn’t I be able to? Not to mention, these females will be running and jumping around, sometimes taking off their shirts, or showering nude. In all sincerity, why couldn’t I join this all female platoon? Can no one see that this movement in the name of equality is really that of a movement to achieve similarity?

    In conclusion: The congress is supposed to run the army. Make sure there are no situations where people will easily get distracted or otherwise disorderly.

    Extremely disappointed in his vote. Instead of listening to major generals, a clear and vocal majority of those already serving, and basic sexual realization, he caved for one of the biggest special interest groups in America.

    He can kiss the republican nomination goodbye. Extremely hard to write that sentence.

    • Benjamin

      “I could think of no worse place to have people sexually attracted to each other than in boot camp, training, or battlefield.”

      And people who do misbehave in the army _are_ dealt with… _When they do something they’re not supposed to_. You have to break the rules first. If the army didn’t function that way, we wouldn’t have an army because anyone can potentially break rules.

      Amazing that some people have to have this pointed out to them…

    • Grant


      Congress has the power to raise an army. The president gets to run the army.

      If you’re point is that congress is supposed to run the army, well you have it. They ARE doing just that, just not in a way that you would agree with.

    • Lindsey

      Tommy: You’re right in your analysis of this issue. Not all soldiers will be bothered by homosexuals serving with them but some will and that is reason enough for the don’t ask don’t tell policy. I think Ron is losing it!

  • Glen

    How would someone be discriminated against for being a homosexual if no one asked them and they didn’t tell. If you can look at them and suspect they are homos and discriminate, it doesn’t matter if Don’t ask, don’t tell is in place or not. There are already laws for discrimination based on sexual orientation.

    I support Paul on many issues and beleive he’s the best we’ve got, but see this is simply a sell out to the powerful gay lobby and a wake up call(once again).
    All these guys can be twisted if the right twister comes along. Don’t beleive he voted this way because he “received several calls and visits from constituent”–and if he did–how silly and foolish!

    The economic aspect of his story is lame as well. Tell us Dr. Paul about homosexual activity being conductive to disease and how that most cases of AIDS are due to the trauma and blood exchange during anal sex as well as the promiscuity that’s so common amongst homosexuals. Homos have much higher cases of all venereal diseases and cancer that are related. How in the world is having to deal with this saving the military money? It’s not!!! It will cost!

    This is simply about gays promoting their agenda and lifestyle and making it more commonplace in American society.

    Go ahead and follow blindly like sheep. The Obama people are doing it, so you may as well too, right?

  • I think Ron’s reasoning being only financial makes sense. How can he have a moral outrage when he’s opposed to the wars to begin with and he’d prefer nobody be in the military if possible?

    But, if they’re going to be over there, they should at least be as frugal as possible.

    That’s my take anyway.


  • Ron Paul made a courageous vote on repealing the bill. & I feel that gays and lesbians should be able to serve in the military because they can be just as patriotic as their heterosexual counterparts.

    • Ben

      Courageous? In what sense?

      He voted the way the administration wanted him to vote. His vote was in line with public opinion and preveailing societal trend. He voted the way the news media wanted him to vote. He voted the way most people in the Congress did.

      I think Ron Paul had more courage when he used to stand against the powerful, monied, homosexual lobby. Now that takes guts.

      You might argue that his vote was correct, but please don’t argue that it was courageous. That just doesn’t pass the laugh test.

      • Oh! & your fine with the government telling us how everyone should live.
        He has thought about it with an independent mind, unlike you.

      • FYI! Ron Paul knows where he stands. He doesn’t impose his views on others.

  • Ben

    I miss the old Ron Paul. That Ron Paul had the cajones and the integrity to speak plainly and let the chips fall where they may. He was not cowed by the homsexual lobby.

    In an article entitled “Bring Back the Closet!” Paul pined, “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

    Spoken like a true libertarian. Unfortunately, that Paul is dead and gone. The new rainbow-friendly is now voting to repeal DADT. And shame on him for it. I could have voted for the old Ron Paul. He had guts and I like that.

    • Yvonne

      Ben I see how in a certain millieu his previous comment with the closet still has some relevance. I just don’t believe it applies to the army. There was and still is a potential problem in schools where parents rights to withhold sexual info. from very young children was being violated and that would be a setting where closet(or bed info.) needs to stay private imo. My rationale is that I have young chlidren and they don’t need to know what anyone is doing when the bedroom doors are shut. I have even heard older children refer to sex ed as ”icky stuff that made them feel weird”..
      There was a threat to parents whose right to decline from having their children learn about ”icky stuff” was being trampled.
      Anyway….the army is a different matter because it is a public institution and only adults are involved. So now it becomes freedom of speach.
      So his view on that makes sense.
      Don’t you think?

    • Yvonne

      Also don’t let our political system play you.
      They deliberately set us up to war with each other over moral issues.
      Different millieus need different boundaries. They blur the lines deliberately.
      They sow the seeds of discord.
      They have conservatives shaming people into hating homosexuals while they have liberals shaming people for feeling modest and shy. It’s divisive.
      I want protection for my own private space so I want assurance that if some GI busts into my home and starts telling my 9 year old how he like to achieved orgasm I can warn him to stop and call 911 if he doesn’t.
      On the flip side:
      If GiJoe want to tell his bunk buddy about the things that float his boat then I think he has that right and I don’t want Uncle Sam getting involved.
      Can you see that at all?

  • Michael

    I’ve been a Ron Paul supporter before it was cool, and I must say, I am glad that he voted in favor of repealing DADT, as I was hoping he would.

  • Ryan

    I didn’t know Ron’s position on this issue before. But I am glad that he now opposes “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. I must say, I’m a little disappointed that his only stated reason for doing so is financial in nature. To me, as a matter of principal, any non-criminal person that wants to serve their nation should be allowed to do so. The government and military should not be discriminating based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. But regardless of reasoning, I am glad he is now voting to eliminate this philosophically, as well as economically, flawed policy. As long as a soldiers conduct is militarily uniform and appropriate, while on duty, they should be allowed to serve.

    • Ben

      Okay, Ryan a few things.

      You mentioned that as long as a soldier’s behavior is appropriate “while on duty” they should be allowed to serve. In some respect, soldiers are always on duty. There is no off duty. The military gets in your business in ways large and small. That’s the way it is. It’s not just another job. In any case, you can’t just don’t do anything you want so long as you’re out of uniform. You can’t, for example, smoke marijuana.

      Secondly, you have to consider the amount of personel who have already said that they will leave the military as a result of this. It’s a minimum of ten percent. That’s larger than the Marine Corps.

      Finally, this isn’t a matter of simply “allowing” homosexuals to mention that they have same sex attractions. It brings up issues of whether soldiers will be forced to affirm that behavior (I assure you, they will) whether they will be permitted to express sincerely hel religious beliefs on the subject (I assure you, they won’t) what chaplains will be able to tell soldiers who are struggling with same sex attractions, what Bible verses can be read. There will be diversity training and endless EO complaints.

      Yes, homosexuals should be “allowed” to serve, and they already are. They just have to keep it to themselves and no one is allowed to inquire about it. From what I’ve heard from homosexuals, they think that their bedroom behavior is their own private business.

      This vote is just further proof that Ron Paul is a RINO. This has nothing to do with smaller government and everything to do with bowwing before the homosexual agenda.

      • Joan

        Ben, you notice how he’s having a hard time getting over 3,000 pledges? That tells us something. When you really get down to it, most folks want all of the social programs, they fight in here about being taken care of by the government. I was talking in one board in MNNBC this lawyer made about health care is not a right, pro-Libertarian, fools parroting Glenn Beck talking about they would rather pass from cancer than ask for free health care cause they watch Glenn Beck and he is teaching them “real education.” As soon as I told them Obama is going to give them 12,000 a year to pay for health insurance, they all stopped posting. If the Tea Party people could get their 500 billion back in socialized medicine that Obama took out of Medicare and if they could get rid of the illegals and end welfare to fund SS and Medicare, they would be very happy. What I see is people who want socialism and are in denial about what they want because their education is from Glenn Beck. It’s a big disconnect. That may be why Ron Paul is not getting support. Also, look at how his son went off the hook about the civil rights act and people with disabilities. Bad politics and those things were not an issue.

        Most of the folks in here are on disability and they figure Ron Paul will cut welfare and all social programs except theirs. Everyone actually wants socialism but no one has figured it out yet. I think we should start looking for another candidate, I don’t know, looking back, people should have gone with universal health care. They freaked out about it because they figured it meant cuts to Medicare. Maybe folks should get behind Obama once they figure out what it is they are really after. I don’t know. The illegals want amnesty, welfare, and to get SS and Medicare, the young people want free health care by cutting the old folks free health care, the old folks want money from the government and government run health care. I see it as a war between the old white folks and the Hispanics and poor younger people over who will get the most entitlements. JMO.

        • Yvonne

          Is there any sort of board monitor. I really am passionate about this issue because I understand both sides and I believe there is a middle ground which cannot be understood because of media exploitation.
          I hoped to engage this young man because his post seemed intelligently written and he represents another side to the argument which I thought we could benefit from.
          But along comes this crazy poster again. The potential dialouge has been completely thwarted.
          What crazy rants? She’s getting worse. Can’t someone stop her?

      • Yvonne

        Ben that is actually a point I hadn’t considered.
        You see how the government is messing with us?
        Freedom for one group threatens to impose unfair restraints on another.
        I agree with repealing the bill but I also wholeheartedly agree with you that I don’t want my rights denied. I want my freedom to politely say ”I think such and such is morally wrong”.

      • Ryan

        Ben, the issue is about what the government should and should not be doing. Individual people can discriminate in their own opinions. I imagine there are still soldiers out there that believe there should be no Atheists in foxholes. Or, that women should not be allowed in combat. But any civilized government, especially one that proclaims, “Liberty, Freedom, and Justice for All”, is obligated to treat its citizens the same under the law.

        Ben, I could care less about, “Endless EO complaints.” or “personnel who have already said that they will leave the military as a result of this.”. Anyone who would leave the military prematurely because of a decision made by their superiors whom they have sworn to obey should be DD’d.
        Further, that reasoning doesn’t hold an ounce of water. The same argument was made when women were allowed as fighter pilots. And that disappeared immediately after the decision was finally passed.

        To me this is a matter of principals and Constitutionality much more so than about what gays or bigots respectively want. It’s about what the government should and should not be doing. It’s about equality under the law. It’s about the Constitutional rights of all people in this nation. If a person is not a convicted criminal they should possess the same rights under the law as everyone else. Thus far the “morality” police have been successful in denying people that they hate, equality of rights. The fact that Gays and Lesbians are allowed to serve if they just keep silent about it is a convenient excuse for continuing to deny them their equality of rights. If a Atheist or Christian says, “I’m Atheist”, or “I’m Christian”, they are not discharged dishonorably. If a man or woman says, “I’m a man” or “I’m a woman”, they are not discharged dishonorably. If a black soldier or white soldier says, “I’m black” or “I’m white”, they are not discharged dishonorably. But when a gay or lesbian says, “I’m gay” or “I’m lesbian” they are discharged dishonorably. It is pure discrimination, and unjustified. If the gay was having sex in a foxhole, I’d say, “yes, that is inappropriate behavior”, worthy of punishment. But to open their mouth and speak words about what they are as a person is not just ground for dismissal.

        No matter how you feel about the issue of homosexuality, it is discrimination and it is wrong on principled and Constitutional grounds to hold them to a different standard than all other “types” of people.

        • Yvonne

          Ryan I agree with repealing the bill but if you don’t mind I am wondering how you feel about military personell quoting Bible passages which say homosexuality is a sin?

        • Ryan

          Hello Yvonne,
          Sure, any person should be able to speak there faith, or disagree on any subject openly. I have no problem with that. There is a difference between individuals (We the People) speaking their opinions, and the Government imposing a discriminatory legal requirement. The Military and the Government should not be allowed to legally discriminate, denying non-criminal people the right to serve. But the soldiers themselves should be free to speak their viewpoints on either side of the debate. Fairness under the law is the main point I’m supporting. To me it’s not really a pro gay or anti gay debate at all. It could be any “type” of people. It’s a pro-Constitutionality argument in favor of equality of rights for We the People. And of course, freedom of speech is a Constitutional right too, and should apply equally to all people as well. It’s the government that is Constitutionally obligated to treat all people equally under the law.

        • Yvonne

          Ryan I wish Ron Paul would explain it that way. Explaining that he wants to protect freedom of speech for soldiers on BOTH sides of the debate would certainly put us ”bible thumpers” at ease.

        • Ryan

          Yes, I agree. His explanation was rather weak. Maybe he’ll expand upon his position in the near future.

          I like to think of this debate as an analogy to pro football. The teams within the league represent the people and all their different philosophical positions on the issues, and the Government is analogous to the referees. While the teams all do heated battle on the issues, the referees are obligated to dispense the rules equally. It’s not really about what the “Packers” or the “Cowboys” represent, it’s about how the referees are dispensing the rules, and whether or not they are being unfair to any team in the league. 🙂