He specifically said that the current policy is decent. He then tried to evade by lecturing about group rights which was not relevant to this issue. It is individuals who are being dismissed not groups. Does the individual soldier, who is gay, have the right to serve or not? That he refused to answer.

Then he false defined the current policy as being about disruptive behavior. Either he does not know what the current policy is or he knows and intentionally misstated it. Neither speaks well for him. It is not about disruptive behavior. A gay soldier can be discharged no matter his behavior. He did not say that gays should be allowed to serve and when give the opportunity to speak up at the end, with the others, to say he did believe they should he kept his mouth shut.

I was a major supporter of Paul in ‘88 but he has become even more of a social conservative than he was back then and back then he was pretty damn conservative. He is libertarian on some things but very unlibertarian on other things. I have been tempted to support him because of his decent stand on the war. But his more loony positions on banking conspiracies and the new world order crap puts me off. I was still wavering a bit until I saw this and decided no way.

————————–

—– Original Message —–
From: M Boldin
To: mail@ronpaul2008.com
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 3:52 PM
Subject: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

In the recent CNN republican presidential debate, Mr. Paul fielded a question in regards to the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

His statement led me to believe that he supported the rights of gays to serve in the military:

“If homosexual behavior disrupts the military it should be removed and if heterosexual behavior disrupts the military it too should be removed.”

But, at the same time, he didn’t take a stand in calling for the abolition of this policy, and seemed to defer to the current Uniform Code of Conduct - which clearly states that the military has the right to expel a person for simply being gay.

Could you provide a clarification of Dr. Paul’s position on this issue?

Does he take a stand and support equal treatment and equal justice, or does he believe that heterosexuals should receive preferential treatment and preferential status in the military?

Thank you, in advance, for your time and response.

In liberty,

Michael Boldin
Populist Party of America
www.populistamerica.com

Excellent points here. It does seem like he was doing a bit of political pandering on this issue, which is not the principled position that we should see from lower-tiered candidates like Ron Paul.

He was definitely contradicting himself by making the right statement - people should be treated equally - on one hand, but then, deferring to the UCC on the other hand.

Discharges from the military based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and the like - are repugnant to the ideals of a free society, AND are in contradiction to the Constitution. All such actions should be stopped immediately.

I’d like to see some real clarification on the issue from the Paul camp.

We are back again to the same side of the coin, where I feel more comfortable than the other way around. And if you think this is what Paul was getting at, then I withdrawal my criticisms. However, he certainly does not have the uncanny ability possessed by a Harry Browne to unambiguously state it how it is and how it should be.

I hope you are right and I simply misinterpreted Paul’s remarks. However, I sensed that all he did was to defer to the current Uniform Code of Conduct, which as we know embodies the principles that if someone is gay, and he is found to be gay, then the military has every right to expel the individual from service; such are the ways of the don’t ask and don’t tell policy, which should be supplemented with the augmentation, or if somebody accidentally opens the closet door policy.

And about Paul’s campaign, obviously he is not going to win the
Republican Nomination, so why does he not just simply state that bigotry - even in the military - is not acceptable and liberty can only exist if it exists for all of us who are simply engaged in the “pursuit of happiness.”
Russ

With all due respect, I believe you have distored Mr. Paul’s position on this issue. He said that the actions of soldiers should dictate how they are treated. He said that the problem is that we group people into categories and that we should not do that.

In fact, here’s the quote:

“If homosexual behavior disrupts the military it should be removed and if heterosexual behavior disrupts the military it too should be removed.”

With this statement, he clearly said heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior should be treated equally….How is that bigoted?

I did notice that he didn’t “raise his hand” to support abolition of don’t ask, don’t tell, so that leaves things a bit on the open end.

A proper position for a free society would be that the current policy should go — there should be no rule against being out or even against having gay sex, as long as the normal rules on fraternizing are not violated.

To me, his statement supported that position - but he didn’t come out (no pun intended) and say that he would outright abolish the program.

All this, though, it yet another reason to abolish the military - in my opinion.