Ron Paul: The Only White Male Republican to Vote For Repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'

[Pennsylvania]

I may sound a bit angry, and I am, because I personally know gay people that have been harassed by bigots like you their whole life - and it has really taken a toll on them.

'tis the truth

 

[CUnknown]

I wonder if MSNBC is going to give him positive coverage for this... not...

Who's the bigot now?

 

[ChaosControl]

Unlike private enterprise, government is funded by tax dollars and therefore should not be able to discriminate in any way that is not directly related to the ability to do the job.

So while setting standards for behaviors and discussions that are allowed in the work place, such as say not allowing PDAs or something, is acceptable, effectively firing someone for behavior outside of the job place that somehow becomes known is not acceptable. Therefore DADT is not acceptable.

A private business could do it if they want and I'd support their right to do it, but a government employer, such as the military, doesn't have that right.

 

[Kojac]

No, I didn't read the whole thread, but as an active duty Marine, I know we have enough problems (despite UCMJ consequences) with heterosexual females on deployments already. Why push the envelope further? The truth is that a minority of openly gay/lesbian servicemembers will create a negative stigma for the rest by their actions.

 

[Imaginos]

Ron Paul just drips pure awesomeness.

 

[libertarian4321]

Count me as another veteran who agrees with Ron Paul on this one.

I would be a bit more cautious, starting with allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in all but combat slots (as women do now). If that worked well (as I suspect it will), I'd open up all slots a few years later.

It's just so freakin' stupid to toss out a linguist or doctor after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars training him.

 

[paulitics]

I don't understand the title. Were there a bunch of nonwhite female republicans that voted for repeal? And if so, why would anyone care.

 

[MelissaWV]

No, I didn't read the whole thread, but as an active duty Marine, I know we have enough problems (despite UCMJ consequences) with heterosexual females on deployments already. Why push the envelope further? The truth is that a minority of openly gay/lesbian servicemembers will create a negative stigma for the rest by their actions.

Psst. I hate to tell you this, since you seem really, really secure in your assertion... but...

There are already gays in the Marines. A lot of them. You probably served with some. You just didn't ask, and they didn't tell.

 

[erowe1]

government is funded by tax dollars and therefore should not be able to discriminate in any way that is not directly related to the ability to do the job.

I don't see the logic in this.

How does the fact that government is funded by tax dollars lead to the conclusion that it shouldn't discriminate in any way not directly related to ability to do the job?

If all right-handed people were banned from service in the military, that would be a good thing for tax payers, wouldn't it?

 

[Kojac]

Psst. I hate to tell you this, since you seem really, really secure in your assertion... but...

There are already gays in the Marines. A lot of them. You probably served with some. You just didn't ask, and they didn't tell.

I don't doubt that, but I wasn't claiming that they weren't. Let me see if I can rephrase for more clarity.

An openly gay servicemember (especially a male) who is caught in a compromising sexual situation (whether or not his command charges him) will stigmatize the openly gay status of other servicemembers and damage their ability to operate cohesively within a unit.

This has already happened with females, especially in country. While many Marines are still able to maintain a professional stance and function around stigmatized individuals, they are generally no longer regarded with as much familiarity and trust.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

I agree wholeheartedly. We should be more about scaling down our military than this Equal Opportunity Empire we are pursuing.

The Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act (HR 4312) Increase Military Force strength by 7,000 in the Army and 500 in the Marine Corp. Unknown increases in US Air Force, Navy, Reserves,and or National Guard.

Obama has increased government employment by 14% since in office.

 

[MelissaWV]

I don't doubt that, but I wasn't claiming that they weren't. Let me see if I can rephrase for more clarity.

An openly gay servicemember (especially a male) who is caught in a compromising sexual situation (whether or not his command charges him) will stigmatize the openly gay status of other servicemembers and damage their ability to operate cohesively within a unit.
...

Fixed. The problem, then, is with lewd behavior that isn't befitting of someone who's on the job. That problem should be addressed as it arises. What's going on is that a whole lot of people have decided to project their stereotypical view of homosexuals (that they are promiscuous, can't help themselves, etc.) onto the entire group. If you punish instances of bad behavior, that is one thing. If you're going to have someone removed because they have a boyfriend back home instead of a girlfriend, that's another.

The fact is that even if you removed all homosexuals and females from the military, there would still be the potential for stigma, and there would absolutely be the potential for bad behavior. The behavior itself is what merits punishment.

 

[ProBlue33]

I get his vote.

BUT...
If somebody is openly flaunting their gaydom, it could disturb the unit.
So let's say a gay guy is doing this and the other enlisted men complain to their CO, now what. The CO tells the guy tone it down, or I can't be responsible for a possible code red, something along those lines.

Gays will still need to be discrete to some extent.
Do you really think a military unit will accept a Chris Crocker type gay guy?

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

+2 to the removing standing armies post.

+1 to supporting Ron Paul pointing out that standards for military behavior trump behavioral disruptions regardless of the source.

-1 to all of the homophobic posts.

-2 to Theo and homohate posts.

Sex scandals eh. How about all of the hooker scandals that have occurred around ports and military bases in the world for the past several decades?

 

[specsaregood]

Another thing about this vote.

As I understand it, Dr. Paul did not actually vote TO Repeal DADT. He voted for the military to be allowed to repeal it if and when they decided it was a good idea.

 

[Kojac]

@MelissaWV

I don't know if this will strike home or even make sense, but it's hard to explain just how much the group/team mentality is hammered into us. We are all Marines, we are all riflemen, etc. It goes deeper once you hit a unit, though. We all drink together, we all chase tail together, we all do a lot of the same things and view each other in that light.

Compounding this, we work on tasks in groups, we pay for each other's mistakes in groups or as a whole, and we are rewarded in groups or as a whole.

If you see where I'm going with this, as much as we defend the right to individualism, and as much as individuals should be held responsible for their actions, that is something we give up for the sake of those we defend.

I hope you can see the problem.

 

[White Knight]

Pat Buchanan would never have voted for this. The Constitution Party may be the only way to go. The Libertarian Party is not a friend to normal people.

 

[specsaregood]

Pat Buchanan would never have voted for this. The Constitution Party may be the only way to go. The Libertarian Party is not a friend to normal people.

You don't think the military should be able to decide for themselves whether to kick out homosexuals or not? Because if you read the amendment that is pretty much what it does.

 

[White Knight]

You don't think the military should be able to decide for themselves whether to kick out homosexuals or not? Because if you read the amendment that is pretty much what it does.

The military's leaders have already come out against the ban.

 

[specsaregood]

The military's leaders have already come out against the ban.

right and this amendment specifically states that nothing changes until they approve of it. So basically....much ado about nothing.

Even if the amendment passes in the Senate, too, the policy will not be immediately repealed, thanks to a compromise requiring implementation of the repeal to wait until the Pentagon completes a study on its impact — expected in December. Then the president, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have to certify that the repeal wouldn’t hurt military readiness.

From: http://www.dallasvoice.com/instant-...asses-defense-bill-with-dadt-repeal-attached/