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

[specsaregood]

No, initially he said it was a "fair" policy. And then later he talked to people affected by it and discovered it was not being enforced as a "fair" policy. My interpretation was that he thought it was being enforced as a type of "no fraternization" policy and when he found out it was being used as a discrimination policy he changed his position and said he would change such a policy.

Here is where he addresses it:
35minutes into the google interview:
YouTube - Candidates@Google: Ron Paul

From that:
"Everybody should be treated equally, they shouldn't be discriminated because of that (homosexuality) alone. Which means, even though those words are not offensive to me...'Don't ask Don't tell'...doesn't sound so bad...I think the way it is enforced is bad."

 

[sluggo]

nvmhttp://www.clipser.com/watch_video/95087

 

[Carole]

If the military commits to enforcing its no fraternization policy, then this should be enough to deal with infringements.

Like the hate crimes law is superfluous because the other laws on the books cover these same crimes. No one should be unequally prosecuted for (or unequally protected by special laws for) the same crime, for example, because it has been labeled a hate crime.

A particular crime is a particular crime; it does not require different and unequal rules for determining justice.

Not to suggest that "fraternization" rises to the same level as a crime, but trying to supply a useful analogy. The military needs to enforce its own rules. If ANYONE breaks a rule he has sworn to uphold, then the military has procedures for the infringement.

My personal feeling is that there could be a loss of morale in the military, but loss of morale can happen under many circumstances. If you are in a foxhole or on a team with someone in whom you have no trust, no matter who that person is, there can be morale problems. That person could be: An incompentent, a troublemaker, a woman, another man, a homosexual, a bad leader or any number of other people; morale could become a problem.

On the other hand one could be in a foxhole or teamed with someone who inspires morale: A competent person of any sex or psychological makeup, having the best qualities that lead to the best results in a given situation. It seems to me that the military does have the responsibility in developing these excellent people and weeding out those who do not meet their standards without regard to outside interference by the government and collective groups with their own agendas.

 

[polomertz]

I remember that Ron said he didn't think it was a bad policy but if we're going to go by it, it should apply to everybody. The problem is, it's only applied to homosexuals. I remember him saying that if there's disruptive homosexual activity, it needs to be dealt with, but I clearly remember him going on to say if there's disruptive heterosexual activity, it needs to be dealt with in the same manner.

 

[Carole]

Well said.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

NO PDA or Fraternization has always been the policy of the military and now affects Homosexuals/Lesbians as it has heterosexuals.

 

[Southron]

I guess once we invade Iran they won't be able to say there aren't gays in the country.

The American Empire. Spreading homosexuality....er democracy abroad.

 

[sratiug]

Don't ask don't tell sucked ass, good for Ron. With what the supposedly straight guys have done at Abu Grhaib (piling naked Iraqis up, raping young boys) I don't see how this is an issue.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

lol. I kind of like Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I mean, wouldn't having overtly homosexual individuals cause disruption? Keep it to yourself.

I doubt RuPaul will be joining the Marines anytime soon. Why should a person have to hide who they are? The government mandated with CRA that business cant discriminate, but they can? Look at it like this, if your gay (not saying you are) but if you were and you are serving in the military, and I ask you "You got a girl back home" .....you have to either refuse to answer, or lie. Why should a person have to do that when they are serving their country? It makes no damn since to me.

 

[tremendoustie]

Does the Military have a right to choose what type of soldiers they want?

Nope, because they're paid for with money stolen from us.

They don't own their property, so they don't have a right to make decisions for it.

 

[tremendoustie]

Fixed it.

Well spotted.

 

[Theocrat]

CNN Nostalgia

Very surprising.He was asked about DODT in one of the 2008 debates, and said he thought it was a good policy.

Yep, I remember that!

That was his third (great) debate in 2007:

YouTube - Ron Paul in CNN debate on June 5, 2007

His answer on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" occurs at 9:08. (I forgot how to load the video beginning on that time. )

 

[7_digitz]

hasnt had a negative effect on the british military and they repealed their anti-gay military policy

 

[silentshout]

I'm glad he did. I wrote a letter to my rep (Campbell, he is horrible) expressing my displeasure at his vote not to repeal it. No reason why gays and lesbians shouldn't be able to serve. Although, it does provide an out if there's a draft.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I doubt RuPaul will be joining the Marines anytime soon. Why should a person have to hide who they are? The government mandated with CRA that business cant discriminate, but they can? Look at it like this, if your gay (not saying you are) but if you were and you are serving in the military, and I ask you "You got a girl back home" .....you have to either refuse to answer, or lie. Why should a person have to do that when they are serving their country? It makes no damn since to me.

Half the country doesn't subscribe to, nor does hard science support, the dogma that homosexuality is inborn and therefore "who they are." Why can't the answer to the girl question be a simple "no?" And the whole issue of who should be in the military 'serving' ought to be secondary to the essential liberty issues of, "why should anybody be 'serving' in the military, when we are not under attack?" "Why not get rid of a regular standing army, as the founders intended us to go without one?"

The existence of a standing army has always given the statists a ready excuse to launch aggression, run up debt and taxes, and keep or foment an unending emergency posture through which they can centralize power and increase the use of state force without the limits the founders intended. Reason and constitutional appeals to return to peace time and a limited state is always trumped by the militarists' emotional shield of, "but that wouldn't be supporting the troops," as long as we have a troop force in place. Asking the downstream question of whether homosexuals should be part of this engine of expanding government aggression, is to major in the minors.

 

[Southron]

Half the country doesn't subscribe to, nor does hard science support, the dogma that homosexuality is inborn and therefore "who they are." Why can't the answer to the girl question be a simple "no?" And the whole issue of who should be in the military 'serving' ought to be secondary to the essential liberty issues of, "why should anybody be 'serving' in the military, when we are not under attack?" "Why not get rid of a regular standing army, as the founders intended us to go without one?"

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

 

[Theocrat]

No Equal Opportunity?

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

 

[Anti Federalist]

Half the country doesn't subscribe to, nor does hard science support, the dogma that homosexuality is inborn and therefore "who they are." Why can't the answer to the girl question be a simple "no?" And the whole issue of who should be in the military 'serving' ought to be secondary to the essential liberty issues of, "why should anybody be 'serving' in the military, when we are not under attack?" "Why not get rid of a regular standing army, as the founders intended us to go without one?"

The existence of a standing army has always given the statists a ready excuse to launch aggression, run up debt and taxes, and keep or foment an unending emergency posture through which they can centralize power and increase the use of state force without the limits the founders intended. Reason and constitutional appeals to return to peace time and a limited state is always trumped by the militarists' emotional shield of, "but that wouldn't be supporting the troops," as long as we have a troop force in place. Asking the downstream question of whether homosexuals should be part of this engine of expanding government aggression, is to major in the minors.

Wow, well done!! +1776

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Half the country doesn't subscribe to, nor does hard science support, the dogma that homosexuality is inborn and therefore "who they are." Why can't the answer to the girl question be a simple "no?" And the whole issue of who should be in the military 'serving' ought to be secondary to the essential liberty issues of, "why should anybody be 'serving' in the military, when we are not under attack?" "Why not get rid of a regular standing army, as the founders intended us to go without one?"

The existence of a standing army has always given the statists a ready excuse to launch aggression, run up debt and taxes, and keep or foment an unending emergency posture through which they can centralize power and increase the use of state force without the limits the founders intended. Reason and constitutional appeals to return to peace time and a limited state is always trumped by the militarists' emotional shield of, "but that wouldn't be supporting the troops," as long as we have a troop force in place. Asking the downstream question of whether homosexuals should be part of this engine of expanding government aggression, is to major in the minors.

Hey, I dont disagree with anything you said as far as the military goes and standing Armies.......with the said.....the government should not be dismissing people based on their sexual orientation.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Half the country doesn't subscribe to, nor does hard science support, the dogma that homosexuality is inborn and therefore "who they are."??.

Why should someone support what someone wishes to do in their own fucking bedroom. Why should people care if some is fucking gay??!?!?!?

Props to Ron Paul for supporting a bigoted policy.