# Think Tank > History >  Barry Goldwater on Gays in the Military

## FrankRep

*Barry Goldwater on gays in the military  lift the ban now!*


LGBT POV
Feb. 5, 2010





All this talk about repealing Dont Ask, Dont Tell  and the spotlight on Arizona Republican Sen. John McCains very public and embarrassingly obvious flip-flop over gays and lesbians serving openly in the military made me think about McCains predecessor  the late Sen. Barry Goldwater, the political father of the conservative movement. Perhaps *his most famous quote* from the early 1990s is, *You dont have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.* (See the Facebook page People for the revival of Barry Goldwater style Conservatism.)

As the Washington Post pointed out in July 1994,

At 85, after a life in politics spanning five decades (he retired from the Senate in 1987), Mr. Conservative has found himself an unlikely new career: as a gay rights activist. [snip] This month he signed on as honorary co-chairman of a drive to pass a federal law preventing job discrimination against homosexuals. The effort, dubbed Americans Against Discrimination, is being spearheaded by the Human Rights Campaign Fund, the influential gay lobbying organization. The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because theyre gay, Goldwater asserts. You dont have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And thats what brings me into it.
...


*Full Story:*
http://www.lgbtpov.com/2010/02/barry...t-the-ban-now/

----------


## Daamien

Good for Barry.  Here's Ron Paul's stance:




> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rig...s_changed.html
> 
> 05/28/2010
> Ron Paul: Constituents changed my mind on 'don't ask, don't tell'
> So why did Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), after supporting "don't ask, don't tell" since its introduction in 1993, vote to begin the process to repeal it?
> 
> "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," Paul said Friday. "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."

----------


## phill4paul

Sad he became a gay rights activist.

  If he would have just been a Constitutionalists then his agenda would have been moot.

----------


## Southron

I never knew he was in favor of making homosexuality a civil right.

I guess that would make it illegal for private businesses to discriminate.

----------


## outspoken

you don't have to be an advocate of homosexuality but if one wishes to call themselves a liberatarian than the only absolutely rational thing is to support individualism above all else.  What another human being does with their sexual organs as long as it does not violate the personal rights of another and thus is consentual is irrelevant.  A person cannot define what love is for another person.  The federal government should have never gotten involved with the marriage debate/licensing.  Ron Paul is dead on yet again.

----------


## Daamien

> I never knew he was in favor of making homosexuality a civil right.
> 
> I guess that would make it illegal for private businesses to discriminate.


The freedom to sexually associate with others regardless of their gender is a right reserved through the First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment.  The federal government should not have the power to regulate or prevent homosexual associations as long as it does not involve interstate commerce by means of soliciting sexual favors for monetary gain.  State governments should not have the right to regulate or prevent homosexual associations given the Fourteenth Amendment's Incorporation Clause that mandates that states do not have the power to infringe upon the civil rights listed and implied in the US Constitution.  Therefore, any discrimination against homosexuals in the public-sector (including Don't Ask Don't Tell) should be ruled unconstitutional.

On the other hand, businesses and organizations _currently_ do have a constitutional right to discriminate against homosexual associations.  Nevertheless, if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is currently accepted as preventing other forms of discrimination in the private-sector on the basis of identity and association through Title VII, then an obvious argument could be made that it should also prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual identity and association.  If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is to maintain in force, then the omission in Title VII should be addressed, putting aside of course the arguments that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is already unconstitutional in its current form due to its application in the private-sector in Title VII.

Class dismissed

----------


## cindy25

Goldwater was always ahead of his time. He would have been a far better president than Reagan

----------


## Aratus

cindy25 ---- ms. ayn rand and my humble self are in total 100% unvarnished agreement with thee...

----------


## bwlibertyman

That's awesome that he thought equality should extend to the military. I definitely favor a repeal of the dadt. I heard republicans blocked a vote on it. I don't know why. I don't know if there was something else in the bill that they didn't want to risk being passed. I wish bills were longer. Politicians put so many arbitrary things in there that it'd be hard to vote for anything because I'm sure some people don't agree with everything. The beltway is a weird place so stuff happens. Well anyway kudos for barry for standing up for equality.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Goldwater was always ahead of his time. He would have been a far better president than Reagan




I always tell all of my "Reagan conservative" friends that Barry Goldwater was a much more principled conservative than Reagan.

----------


## fisharmor

What a great distraction.

Rename it BACK to the Department of War,
stop all the undeclared wars (including drugs and poverty),
slash its budget by 95%,
turn over most of its facilities to state national guards,
decriminalize irregular defensive forces....

...THEN let's have this discussion.
IMO that's the libertarian answer to this problem.

----------


## noxagol

I'm all in favor of Don't Ask Don't Tell, whatever keeps the ranks thin is good in my opinion. The fewer soldiers, the better.

----------


## osan

> I never knew he was in favor of making homosexuality a civil right.
> 
> I guess that would make it illegal for private businesses to discriminate.


How can you "make" a right a right?

----------


## Southron

> How can you "make" a right a right?


The meaning of civil right these days includes taking away the freedom of association from individuals not in the protected class.

----------


## pcosmar

> What a great distraction.
> 
> Rename it BACK to the Department of War,
> stop all the undeclared wars (including drugs and poverty),
> slash its budget by 95%,
> turn over most of its facilities to state national guards,
> decriminalize irregular defensive forces....
> 
> ...THEN let's have this discussion.
> IMO that's the libertarian answer to this problem.


Disband all the Standing Armies. (Military and Police)
End of problem.




> “A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen”
> James Madison

----------


## TheDriver

I don't support gays or illegal immigrants serving in our armies.

This is another reason Ron Paul will never win the Republican primary for President!

----------


## winston_blade

> *I don't support gays* or illegal immigrants serving in our armies.
> 
> This is another reason Ron Paul will never win the Republican primary for President!


DADT totally violates the first amendment, so why would you support it.

----------


## klamath

> *Barry Goldwater on gays in the military  lift the ban now!*
> 
> 
> LGBT POV
> Feb. 5, 2010
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Pass a* federal law to force businesses to hire people?? That guy did go senile. What part of the constitution gives the federal government the power to force private individual to hire someone else?

----------


## TheDriver

> DADT totally violates the first amendment, so why would you support it.


Have you every served in the military? Once your in, there are many constitution rights violated.   It's part of the "contract."

----------


## winston_blade

> Have you every served in the military? Once your in, there are many constitution rights violated.   It's part of the "contract."


I have not, and your point is well taken, but there must be an extremely important government interest in violating those rights.  The first amendment is one of the most important, so they can keep you from saying things that would put others in danger, but saying "I'm a homosexual" certainly wouldn't do such a thing, but it will get you kicked out.

----------


## TheDriver

> I have not, and your point is well taken, but there must be an extremely important government interest in violating those rights.  The first amendment is one of the most important, so they can keep you from saying things that would put others in danger, but saying "I'm a homosexual" certainly wouldn't do such a thing, but it will get you kicked out.


Here is another way to look at it:

Suppose you have 3 sons and George W. Bush jr. wants to draft them, if gays can't serve - they can claim they're gay instead of moving to Canada.

*pun intended*

The more important issue (with this forum) is Ron Paul, in the eyes of most GOP voters, is on the wrong side of this issue.  

We can argue amongst ourselves, but that fact remains.


Just more evidence to me that Ron needs to run indy and not try to fit in the box called the GOP.

----------


## winston_blade

> Here is another way to look at it:
> 
> Suppose you have 3 sons and George W. Bush jr. wants to draft them, if gays can't serve - they can claim they're gay instead of moving to Canada.
> 
> *pun intended*
> 
> *The more important issue (with this forum) is Ron Paul, in the eyes of most GOP voters, is on the wrong side of this issue.  
> 
> We can argue amongst ourselves, but that fact remains.
> ...


I agree with the bold but disagree with the blue.  If he can't win as an Indy, and he wouldn't, then I don't think he should run Indy.

----------


## libertarian4321

> Have you every served in the military? Once your in, there are many constitution rights violated.   It's part of the "contract."


I have served almost 30 years in the Army, active and reserve.

There is a HUGE difference between VOLUNTARILY agreeing to give up some of your rights in order to join the Army, and having your rights violated by being prevented from joining the Army.

I love the Ron Paul (also a veteran) quote in the second post- the guy seems to get it right just about every time.

----------


## TheDriver

> I have served almost 30 years in the Army, active and reserve.
> 
> There is a HUGE difference between VOLUNTARILY agreeing to give up some of your rights in order to join the Army, and having your rights violated by being prevented from joining the Army.
> 
> I love the Ron Paul (also a veteran) quote in the second post- the guy seems to get it right just about every time.


My point was once you're in the military you don't have the same rights as citizens not in the military.

My other point is this topic for Ron Paul is one of the reasons he'll have a big uphill battle in the 2012 primary with social cons.   

I never voiced my approval or disapproval on "don't ask, don't tell."

----------


## 1000-points-of-fright

> I'm all in favor of Don't Ask Don't Tell, whatever keeps the ranks thin is good in my opinion. The fewer soldiers, the better.


DADT would be repealed instantly if every gay in the military came out of the closet.  If the rate of homosexuality in the general population is in fact 7-10% (last time I heard) and they all came out at the same time the military would be screwed.  They couldn't possibly discharge them all and if they didn't they would look like hypocrites.  They're kinda hurting for people right now.  Also, how many of them would be specialists that the military needs right now?

----------


## oyarde

> That's awesome that he thought equality should extend to the military. I definitely favor a repeal of the dadt. I heard republicans blocked a vote on it. I don't know why. I don't know if there was something else in the bill that they didn't want to risk being passed. I wish bills were longer. Politicians put so many arbitrary things in there that it'd be hard to vote for anything because I'm sure some people don't agree with everything. The beltway is a weird place so stuff happens. Well anyway kudos for barry for standing up for equality.


Other things in a bill ? would they do that ?

----------


## Daamien

> DADT would be repealed instantly if every gay in the military came out of the closet.  If the rate of homosexuality in the general population is in fact 7-10% (last time I heard) and they all came out at the same time the military would be screwed.  They couldn't possibly discharge them all and if they didn't they would look like hypocrites.  They're kinda hurting for people right now.  Also, how many of them would be specialists that the military needs right now?


While I think that would be a great move to change the policy, no one in military service should have to sacrifice their privacy to attain equality.

----------


## klamath

The day they do away DADT is also the day they should make ALL facilities in the military asexual. Until then it is reverse discrimination.

----------


## Drex

Why did Goldwater want to Nuke Vietnam? I thought that wasn't the libertarianism approach to war. Why didn't he just want to pull out?

----------


## FrankRep

> Why did Goldwater want to Nuke Vietnam? I thought that wasn't the libertarianism approach to war. Why didn't he just want to pull out?


Barry Goldwater thought if we're in a war, lets win.


*Wikipedia: Barry Goldwater*

Regarding Vietnam, Goldwater charged that Johnson's policy was devoid of "goal, course, or purpose," leaving "only sudden death in the jungles and the slow strangulation of freedom."

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Why did Goldwater want to Nuke Vietnam? I thought that wasn't the libertarianism approach to war. Why didn't he just want to pull out?


Barry Goldwater posessed many virtues. Unfortunately, his foreign policy stances were rather hawkish/interventionist (derived from his staunch anti-Communism).

----------


## Domalais

Zombie thread!  That other thread was right!

----------


## jmdrake

> What a great distraction.
> 
> Rename it BACK to the Department of War,
> stop all the undeclared wars (including drugs and poverty),
> slash its budget by 95%,
> turn over most of its facilities to state national guards,
> decriminalize irregular defensive forces....
> 
> ...THEN let's have this discussion.
> IMO that's the libertarian answer to this problem.


I regret I only have 1 +rep for this post.

----------

