Where were all the presidential candidates* as the vote to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was nearing?  The collective silence was loud.  Only Rush Limbaugh brashly called the repeal, “gays in the military, show and tell”.  But at the end it was largely a GOP candidates no-show and no-tell.

Before the recent votes in the lame-duck session of Congress repealing DADT (a policy that dated back to the Bill Clinton administration), I called on politicians to come out and announce their positions. Former governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson wrote a piece for the Huffington Post saying he was against DADT, while 2008 nominee John McCain spoke in the Senate to retain it.  Otherwise, I was mostly ignored.  In fact, I was completely ignored (Does anybody but me really think Johnson or McCain announced because of me?)  But I digress.

Speaking of surprises, we shouldn’t be surprised when candidates without principles stick their fingers in the wind and change their votes as often as President Obama changes batteries on his teleprompter. But when candidates like Ron Paul claim their position is a principled one (based on the U.S. Constitution), their changes in position almost certainly mean one of two things: Either the candidate has not been candid all along, or he or she is going soft.

Ron Paul previously supported DADT.  His recent vote to repeal it is one more thing that shouldn’t surprise us, however.  Though Paul professes Christianity, years ago he said he does not even think homosexuality is a sin.  He says this because he is a doctor, not because he can find support for his position in the Bible.   As I have pointed out elsewhere, without the Word of God as a standard, there could be no successful stand against moral degradation.  I believe abortion has become established in the USA, partly because Christians have been afraid to use the Bible as the Sword of the Spirit.  Homosexual “marriage” may be next.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

*Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Tim Pawlenty.  Some have spoken plainly in favor of the DADT in the past (Huckabee and Santorum), one has flip-flopped (Guess Who?), and one has punted (Sarah Palin).   But none made an issue of it during the lame duck session.  Is this a portent of things to come? Will they join Ron Paul?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_krYcGZhJk

Cross-Posted on Race42012

103 comments
  1. I am a celibate gay Christian. Pharisees like you that “promote” Christianity using politics will never understand the Gospel, although like the Pharisees you are the loudest and most obnoxious religious people of the day.

    1. Although I personally don’t believe you can be both gay and a christian, I support your voice to say whatever you want and to serve if you wish in the US military. We each have our own voice and although we may disagree on certain personal religious issues, that should not affect any government policies. Happy New Year to you!

    2. I’m curious, are you celibate because you are waiting for a “committed relationship” or be in a state where you can be married? Or are you celibate because you recognize and embrace God’s design? I can appreciate your position if you are embracing God’s design. If your answer is yes to the first question then I think you are misguided.

      Ultimately God calls us to holiness, not heterosexuality. So I can appreciate you embracing God’s design while struggling with temptation. I would encourage you to recognize that your identity is in Christ, not in your sexual preference or temptation though. My person sin isn’t what idenifies me.

      1. wow you call him a sinner, and actually seem to think he gives a hoot what aspects of his choices you “appreciate” …hey, just curious, is blatant arrogance a sin?

  2. It is quite a stretch to tie abortion to Dont ask Dont Tell. Ron Paul is a true christian who is definitely Pro Life. As far as Dont ask Dont tell is concerned, I think Barry Goldwater summed it up right. “I dont care if a man is straight. Only that he can shoot straight.”

  3. It is quite a stretch to tie abortion to Dont ask Dont Tell. Ron Paul is a true christian who is definitely Pro Life. As far as Dont ask Dont tell is concerned, I think Barry Goldwater summed it up right. “I dont care if a man is straight. Only that he can shoot straight.”

  4. omg Ron Paul changes his vote on dadt. Have you ever changed your mind after learning more on a subject. If you listen to Ron and his reason for voting the way he did his augument is makes sense. If Ron Paul has disapointed you and you can’t deal with him not being perfect in your mind. Then you should take a good look at the rest or the potential candidates. Ron Paul believes in individual freedom as long as you do no harm to others. Does being gay cause harm to others? If you want to keep your freedom you must not deny others their’s.

  5. Yes David, I’m surprised as well. I’m sure *all* the candidates wait with baited breath, on the edges of their seats, in anticipation for your Caffeinated articles to appear so they can issue press statements on whatever topic you call on them to discuss.
    .
    As of December 30, 2010 Caffeinated Thoughts declared Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) the winner of the third annual Caffeinated Conservative Award with 45% of the vote. Here are the final results

    *
    Ron Paul – 1,457 (45%)
    *
    Sarah Palin – 1,084 (33%)
    *
    Mike Huckabee – 204 (6%)
    *
    Nikki Haley – 142 (4%)
    *
    Michele Bachman – 141 (4%)
    *
    Mike Pence – 75 (2%)
    *
    Rand Paul – 49 – (2%)
    *
    Paul Ryan – 33 (1%)
    *
    Marco Rubio – 31 (1%)
    *
    Bobby Jindal – 31 (1%)

    For many who voted and commented Congressman Paul has been the champion for liberty and limited government. His commitment to auditing and providing accountability to the Fed was cited quite often as well. Congratulations to Congressman Paul and his supporters

  6. David you need to stop with this Ron Paul in not a Good enough Christian crap!!!! You are yourself baring False Witness everytime you write this garbage! Besides I would love for you to show me where in the bible Jesus said anything against Gays?
    I believe you would be on board with what I have heard in Christian circles that it is ok to Lie to People that do not go to your church!
    Sorry Christianity does not work that way! Ron Paul is the most princpled man in Washington and you need to stop with these attacks based in trying to mud up his unreproachable character! Do the research, I would stack Dr Paul up against anyone in Washington!!!
    I really feel bad for your parents, If you check the old testament since you seem to be using it for your Gay Hate Retoric! I think you would also find that your parents could Stone you for baring False Witness… But I get it you are one of those that pick and chose what you want to believe out of the book, instead of understanding the simple fact that it is a book about Love.. Not hate! or Lies!

    1. I love Ron Paul and I agree with him when it comes to this issue. Our personal beliefs can never stand in front of liberty, I just wanted to touch on the issue of Jesus speaking about homosexuality. In order to understand the laws and how they were passed forward from the old testament, you need to understand the difference between civil, ceremonial, and societal laws in Jewish culture. Although not specifically addressed by Jesus in the New Testament, the Old testament laws condemning homosexuality were reflected in Jesus’ teachings. See John 5:46-47 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” Also Matt. 19:4 ““Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’”

  7. David, your panties are in a bunch because Ron Paul won your Conservative award. Get over it! If you will read the Republican platform you will understand that he really is the most conservative.

  8. I am not at all surprised that Paul would vote to end DADT. He is a libertarian. He believes in individual liberties and the smallest possible government involvement in your life. I don’t agree with Paul on some things, but I don’t find this shocking in the least.

  9. Lets just hope BS social topics like this dont take over the debate on the issues of 2012. There are more important things to worry about like the economy, the BS wars we get into, forcing people to get health care if they dont want it etc etc. To make this issue top priority would be a huge burden on getting this country back into fiscal health. Of course, its much easier for politicians to talk about things like this as opposed to the hard fiscal decisions we need to make in this country. In that area, politics as usual will triumph because we waste our time on stuff like this. Anyone stupid enough to join the military and fight our corporate wars should be allowed to, no matter who they decide to have sex with.

    1. Very good point Mq. Only I feel bad for the stupid people who join the military to fight wars they know nothing about. They are like sheep being led to the slaughter as they slaughter either other sheep or innocent civilians.

      1. Yeah, they are serving a godless Marxist in the Whitehouse and fighting a war to give Iraq to the Shiites of Iran. I’m sorry but I’m tired of people conflating military services with serving your country. People in the military serve the government, not the country, learn to distinguish between the two. The military does the bidding of the federal government and believe it or not the federal government often does things that are contrary to the interests of American society at large. The war in Iraq has cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. It has generated hatred against the US and inspired terrorism. Also our entry into the country destroyed the secular Sunni minority that ran the country before. Maybe you didn’t realize this but “democracy in Iraq” equals triumph of the Islamic Revolution of Iran in Iraq. The two biggest political factions (together about 80% of the vote) are Shiite and run from Tehran. The Christina community in Iraq (almost 2,000 years old) has been eradicated. Now in Iraq the smile of woman is a crime. Our troops are dying to accomplish this. But these details don’t bother you. The only thing you can bring yourself to do is laud whatever the military does. Maybe you should be a bit more honest and stop claiming to worship god, and admit that you worship the military and the government generally.

      2. “Maybe you should be a bit more honest and stop claiming to worship god, and admit that you worship the military and the government generally.”

        No I don’t and since you want to throw an insult at me… not to mention insult me and my brother in arms (I served). I’m blocking you. I pledged to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. I didn’t not make a pledge to the President or to Congress.

        Thanks for maligning the service of those in our armed services. We have fought and many of us have died for your right to do so. But you don’t have the “right” to insult me and our countrymen at arms on my blog.

      3. Yeah, they are serving a godless Marxist in the Whitehouse and fighting a war to give Iraq to the Shiites of Iran. I’m sorry but I’m tired of people conflating military services with serving your country. People in the military serve the government, not the country, learn to distinguish between the two. The military does the bidding of the federal government and believe it or not the federal government often does things that are contrary to the interests of American society at large. The war in Iraq has cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. It has generated hatred against the US and inspired terrorism. Also our entry into the country destroyed the secular Sunni minority that ran the country before. Maybe you didn’t realize this but “democracy in Iraq” equals triumph of the Islamic Revolution of Iran in Iraq. The two biggest political factions (together about 80% of the vote) are Shiite and run from Tehran. The Christina community in Iraq (almost 2,000 years old) has been eradicated. Now in Iraq the smile of woman is a crime. Our troops are dying to accomplish this. But these details don’t bother you. The only thing you can bring yourself to do is laud whatever the military does. Maybe you should be a bit more honest and stop claiming to worship god, and admit that you worship the military and the government generally.

      4. I dont respect anyone who blindly “follows the leader” without first assessing exactly why they are fighting. The government breaks constitutional law every day. How can anyone in the military claim they take an oath to the constitution with the knowledge that their government pisses on it in both foreign and domestic matters?
        Nothing worse than mindless sheep. You have to earn respect, not just automatically get it just because you signed up for the military. I know some good people in the military and some bad people in the military as well. Just because you might wear a uniform doesnt give you a free pass on being scrutinized in your actions. Thats a load of BS. If you dont understand that, you obviously know nothing about real honor.

      5. I dont respect anyone who blindly “follows the leader” without first assessing exactly why they are fighting. The government breaks constitutional law every day. How can anyone in the military claim they take an oath to the constitution with the knowledge that their government pisses on it in both foreign and domestic matters?
        Nothing worse than mindless sheep. You have to earn respect, not just automatically get it just because you signed up for the military. I know some good people in the military and some bad people in the military as well. Just because you might wear a uniform doesnt give you a free pass on being scrutinized in your actions. Thats a load of BS. If you dont understand that, you obviously know nothing about real honor.

      6. Yes, and its a pretty good assumption to make considering they claim they are “fighting for our freedom” where there is nothing they are doing in the middle east that has anything to do with protecting our freedoms. So that either means they are gullible, or they are lying. Our own government is more of a threat to our freedoms than some muslim half way across the globe. So how are they protecting us from anything our government is doing to take away our freedoms while they are playing in a sand box on the other side of the planet? Was it the “terrorists” forcing us to get health care? Was it the terrorists forcing us to obey unconstitutional laws forced on us by our own government? NOPE.

        You military guys make absolutely no sense when you say “were over there protecting your freedoms” If you people dont wake up to the facts, this country is screwed.

      7. That is your opinion… which doesn’t make it fact, so because those in the military generally don’t hold your position and view of the war “they’re gullible or lying.”

        Since you think that it makes me believe you are supremely arrogant and self-deluded.

      8. Ron Paul is no friend of the military. Under the name of strong defense, he does not care if the morale within is destroyed.

      9. People making contributions were required by McCain-Feingold to list their employer. This story was reported by several news outlets all through that campaign.

        I realize this may not jibe with any one person’s feelings about Paul, and certainly I’d never represent the data as signifying that all servicemen and women support him. But in that election, more supported him than any other candidate.

        Perhaps it’s possible to respect and appreciate the fine men and women in the U.S. military, yet still require a high standard from the Commander in Chief on where and how these folks should be put into harm’s way.

        Also remember, Congressman Paul served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force. So his perspective may not be completely without experience or consideration.

      10. People making contributions were required by McCain-Feingold to list their employer. This story was reported by several news outlets all through that campaign.

        I realize this may not jibe with any one person’s feelings about Paul, and certainly I’d never represent the data as signifying that all servicemen and women support him. But in that election, more supported him than any other candidate.

        Perhaps it’s possible to respect and appreciate the fine men and women in the U.S. military, yet still require a high standard from the Commander in Chief on where and how these folks should be put into harm’s way.

        Also remember, Congressman Paul served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force. So his perspective may not be completely without experience or consideration.

      1. The term “dominionist” is rather derogatory. As a Christian, I seek to influence government just like you seek to influence, but I understand that we aren’t supposed to establish a religion I don’t think DADT does that. So basically you are telling people who have religious motivations to uphold (or pass laws) to shut up. The motivations behind a law doesn’t actually mean it doesn’t serve a secular purpose or that it establishes religion. Actually arguments I’ve provided in posts I’ve written criticizing the repeal haven’t been religious ones at all with the exception of protecting religious liberty which I would think a true libertarian would care about as well.

      2. The term “dominionist” is rather derogatory. As a Christian, I seek to influence government just like you seek to influence, but I understand that we aren’t supposed to establish a religion I don’t think DADT does that. So basically you are telling people who have religious motivations to uphold (or pass laws) to shut up. The motivations behind a law doesn’t actually mean it doesn’t serve a secular purpose or that it establishes religion. Actually arguments I’ve provided in posts I’ve written criticizing the repeal haven’t been religious ones at all with the exception of protecting religious liberty which I would think a true libertarian would care about as well.

    1. I did not question Paul’s Christianity, only the consistency of such a claim and his view of homosexuality. We all have blind spots and should not ultimately judged by those.

    2. I did not question Paul’s Christianity, only the consistency of such a claim and his view of homosexuality. We all have blind spots and should not ultimately judged by those.

      1. Thanks for clearing that up David. So, to be clear, you do not see a person’s view on homosexuality as a litmus test of their Christianity. And consequentially, you do not think that Ron Paul sinned by voting to repeal DADT. Just trying to understand where you are coming from.

      2. Thanks for clearing that up David. So, to be clear, you do not see a person’s view on homosexuality as a litmus test of their Christianity. And consequentially, you do not think that Ron Paul sinned by voting to repeal DADT. Just trying to understand where you are coming from.

      3. Bob, Thanks for posting.

        Litmus test, no. Part of the picture, certainly. I cannot judge Paul’s motive for his vote. His statement in 2007 that he could not call homosexuality sin displays either an ignorance of Scripture or placing his own opinions above the Word of God; the latter definitely would be a sin.

      4. Thanks again. My issue is calling a vote to repeal DADT a sinful vote. From what you have written I think that you are not saying that Ron Paul sinned. From what you wrote you really do not know his motives or his rationale for his position on homosexuality. In a sense you may have maligned another Christian based on your own ignorance of his motives and rationale.

  10. “Man bites dog.”

    The only reason Congressman Paul’s change of position is notable is its contrast to the constancy of his decades of principled and constitutionally-driven voting record.

    Unlike most every other wind-sock politician in Washington, Paul actually bases his stances (and votes) on principles and his reading of the U. S. Constitution. How many other legislators have you heard that even bother to do this?

  11. It is utterly absurd to suggest that Ron Paul, of all people, has a windsock that drives him to vote whichever way he thinks will be politically profitable, and you surely know this if you are even vaguely familiar with his overall voting record. He has served 11 terms in Congress, and has never once voted for a tax increase, has never voted for a corporate bailout or subsidy, has never voted for an unbalanced budget, has voted for every tax cut which has been placed in front of him, and has had the backbone, on numerous occasions, to stand alone against every other member of the US Congress in voting consistently with his principles. The central planks of Ron Paul’s platform, from Austrian-style economic conservatism to Constitutionalist federalism and limited government to foreign non-interventionism to civil libertarianism, have never changed, and he has always voted in accord with them.

    Now, he has shifted his position on a small number of isolated issues over the years owing to consideration and new information- he supported the death penalty into the 1990s, but has come to oppose it in more recent years, and has, as you’ve noted (albeit in very misleading terms), changed his position on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell with further reflection and greater understanding- but, as was noted in another post within this discussion, this is analogous to a “man bites dog” headline inasmuch as it is the extreme exception rather than the norm for Ron Paul to change his position. Even a man of principle is capable of errors in judgment, and is capable of changing that judgment upon coming to grips with new knowledge and new insight.

  12. You believe in Christianity, that is your choice. Let others do as they please as long is it doesn’t interfere with the LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY of their fellow citizens. Ron Paul’s flip flop was noble: he LISTENED to his constituents! If everyone else in congress did the same, we wouldn’t have the new healthcare laws, nor the Patriot Act, etc ad infinitum. YOU may believe homosexuality is a sin. FINE! Let them “burn in hell” as you believe, because others might not believe the same as you. Forcefully imposing your religious values upon everyone else is morally wrong and contrary to the founders beliefs. There is a reason Jefferson didn’t ban homosexuality or indulging in marijuana when writing the Constitution. As such, you have no right to infringe upon their liberty of association, whether that be marriage or otherwise. Attempting to do so makes you no less than an arrogant Christian zealot with no regard for the Constitution of the United States.

    Furthermore, if you want to get into homosexuality being a sin – that comes from the book of Leviticus. According to Leviticus, anyone working on a Sunday, anyone who spites their parents, anyone who eats shellfish, anyone who is not a virgin come marriage, anyone who does not treat their bodies as a temple (drinking, smoking, etc), should be punished by stoning to death or a spectrum of other brutal punishments. I can think of few things more unethical and Draconian than the Book of Leviticus.

    RON PAUL 2012.

  13. A change in position can indeed mean “the candidate has not been candid all along, or he or she is going soft.” But, it can also mean they have become more informed on a subject and realize they might have, gasp, been wrong. I give Ron Paul credit for that. It shows he isn’t perfect and I would think Christians would appreciate that. I don’t agree with Dr. Paul on all of his positions, but I agree with him far more often than I do with any other politician out there.
    David, it would be a shame if your hatred of homosexuals were to blind you to the fact that if Ron Paul had been in office instead of Bush or Obama, this country would be in much better shape than it is today.

      1. Well, David, first off, your article strongly implies it. Secondly, your reply fails to deny it. Had you replied “I don’t hate homosexuals. Why would you say such a horrible thing?” then I might have had second thoughts. But, this is a free country and you are welcome to hate homosexuals and to post outrageous attacks on Ron Paul. Just keep in mind, Ron Paul is one of the few politicians with a proven record of defending our civil liberties. Without people like him, these types of discussion could easily disappear along with other freedoms we take for granted.

  14. A change in position can indeed mean “the candidate has not been candid all along, or he or she is going soft.” But, it can also mean they have become more informed on a subject and realize they might have, gasp, been wrong. I give Ron Paul credit for that. It shows he isn’t perfect and I would think Christians would appreciate that. I don’t agree with Dr. Paul on all of his positions, but I agree with him far more often than I do with any other politician out there.
    David, it would be a shame if your hatred of homosexuals were to blind you to the fact that if Ron Paul had been in office instead of Bush or Obama, this country would be in much better shape than it is today.

    1. I heard Ron Paul with my own ears say he supported the then current policy of DADT. You really shouldn’t toss around the words “liar” so easily.

      The original interview with Lofton can be found linked from the WND article linked above. About the 26 minute mark he said supported DADT. Now if he tells one group one thing, and another another thing, I can’t help that. Go listen for yourself.

  15. Serious Question:

    Can someone spell out the moral argument for not letting gays serve in the military? So for now, I want to put aside the “practical, secular, or operational” concerns and focus on this moral question.

    If one views homosexuality as a sin, then I can understand that we don’t want to be welcoming sinners into our military. Makes sense! So…what if someone has committed adultery, which, is a sin. (I’ll base that on 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and the 6th commandment.) Should we let them serve? I mean, committing adultery is forbidden in the SIX COMMANDMENT! That’s a pretty big deal. And what if someone takes the Lord’s name in vain? Also a sin — a big sin. You know, if we want a moral army and moral country, then why would we ever let sinners like this serve? In fact, why not kick them out!? And why are we letting non-believers serve anyway??

    You see, without the Word of God as a standard, there can be no successful stand against moral degradation. And just look at the degradation! Clearly, we have not been following the Word of God. There are adulterers in our army! There are people who worship false gods…or NO GOD! If you are against the sinful gays serving, then you should be against these other sinner being allowed in our military!

    But, for some odd reason, I have not heard your cries on this front. Why? Where is your consistency?? The only conclusion I can come to is “either the candidate has not been candid all along, or he or she is going soft.”

    Now, as for the secular, practical, and operational concerns, this is why I put them aside earlier: Most of the top brass in the military have acknowledged that it’s not going to cause significant problems. Furthermore, we’ve not seen any major problems with the Brits or the Israelis or other nations who have let gays serve openly. In fact, here’s a list of them:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service

    So, there doesn’t seem to be a real secular, practical, or operational reason for not letting gays serve. BUT, there is a moral one. And please, pursue rooting out the gays based on your moral principals!! BUT ONLY if you are consistent with the Word of God and also root out the adulterers, the stealers, the non-believers, the idol worshippers, those who have not honored their parents, and those who have used the Lord’s name in vain. Get rid of the sinner!…but do it consistently.

    Thanks,
    Jeff

    1. We already do ban unrepentant thieves from the military. Do you think they would allow a criminal who says, while I am on leave, I’ll continue to steal? You think they would be allowed to serve?

      1. We allow people who have committed theft to serve in the military. They have sinned, and you have no way to know if they are repentant or not. (Maybe they should be required to repent before they enter the military…but that’s not the case today.) Why are you so soft of these sinners? Thou shalt not steal! Again, a commandment. And criminals are not going to say “oh, while I’m on leave, I’ll continue to steal.” I just think you’re just too soft here to let documented and, as far as we know, unrepentant sinners into our military.

        And what about adulterers? If someone has told another soldier that they are indeed an adulterer or that they plan on committing adultery while on leave, they should be discharged. We’re talking about people violating the Ten Commandments here! And what about the atheists who serve and OPENLY deny His existence all together. It’s an outrage! Why pay more attention to Leviticus 18:22 than to the 10 Commandments? Again, “without the Word of God as a standard, there could be no successful stand against moral degradation.” You just seem to be really soft on these other sinners and you don’t seem to be upholding and applying equally the Word of God.

        So, I still don’t see the moral argument holding water unless you apply it across the board, and not just pick and choose your sins. The Lord defines what sins are, not you or any other man.

        Thank you,
        Jeff

      2. We allow people who have committed theft to serve in the military. They have sinned, and you have no way to know if they are repentant or not. (Maybe they should be required to repent before they enter the military…but that’s not the case today.) Why are you so soft of these sinners? Thou shalt not steal! Again, a commandment. And criminals are not going to say “oh, while I’m on leave, I’ll continue to steal.” I just think you’re just too soft here to let documented and, as far as we know, unrepentant sinners into our military.

        And what about adulterers? If someone has told another soldier that they are indeed an adulterer or that they plan on committing adultery while on leave, they should be discharged. We’re talking about people violating the Ten Commandments here! And what about the atheists who serve and OPENLY deny His existence all together. It’s an outrage! Why pay more attention to Leviticus 18:22 than to the 10 Commandments? Again, “without the Word of God as a standard, there could be no successful stand against moral degradation.” You just seem to be really soft on these other sinners and you don’t seem to be upholding and applying equally the Word of God.

        So, I still don’t see the moral argument holding water unless you apply it across the board, and not just pick and choose your sins. The Lord defines what sins are, not you or any other man.

        Thank you,
        Jeff

  16. Our leaders have mostly become a bunch of wimps–afraid to speak the truth. The repeal of DADT isn’t about “equality”–it’s about pushing the radical homosexual agenda down the country’s throat. The ultimate goal, of course, is to pass “hate crime” laws that silence anyone who condemns homosexuality. That’s exactly what has happened in Canada. Can we be far behind? Those who embrace the radical homosexual agenda are out for complete control, not equality. They don’t care about free speech for anybody except themselves IMO. It’s a shame that most folks are too naive to see this, just as they were too naive in 2008 to see what Obama was all about.

  17. Our leaders have mostly become a bunch of wimps–afraid to speak the truth. The repeal of DADT isn’t about “equality”–it’s about pushing the radical homosexual agenda down the country’s throat. The ultimate goal, of course, is to pass “hate crime” laws that silence anyone who condemns homosexuality. That’s exactly what has happened in Canada. Can we be far behind? Those who embrace the radical homosexual agenda are out for complete control, not equality. They don’t care about free speech for anybody except themselves IMO. It’s a shame that most folks are too naive to see this, just as they were too naive in 2008 to see what Obama was all about.

  18. Even stupid articles deserve a debate. Thats cause calling something stupid is as normative as this article. Ron Paul probably supported DADT because it was an improvement of the status quo from when homosexuals were openly discriminated against. Now that the debate has shifted he supports again the more libertarian option. Disagree with him all you want, but calling him a flipflopper is just dishonest.
    I am a christian too but the continuous conflict that many christians have with sex is very troubling to me. There is no reason why we should be so hostile to other people for what they do on their own time. Far more importnat is how people treat other people then what they do on a consensual bases in their homes. Stop making the stand on sexuality. Prohibition never worked and it is wasted time and energy.

  19. Even stupid articles deserve a debate. Thats cause calling something stupid is as normative as this article. Ron Paul probably supported DADT because it was an improvement of the status quo from when homosexuals were openly discriminated against. Now that the debate has shifted he supports again the more libertarian option. Disagree with him all you want, but calling him a flipflopper is just dishonest.
    I am a christian too but the continuous conflict that many christians have with sex is very troubling to me. There is no reason why we should be so hostile to other people for what they do on their own time. Far more importnat is how people treat other people then what they do on a consensual bases in their homes. Stop making the stand on sexuality. Prohibition never worked and it is wasted time and energy.

  20. Cute illustration. Not just flip-flops, but lavender flip-flops with rhinestones! Can a photo of solider wearing gold lame and a feather boa be far behind?

    LOOK: Everyone in the military knows that Gay soldiers have always been there. Everyone in the military knows that Gay and Straight soldiers have always showered together and bunked together. None of that was ever going to change whether “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was kept or repealed. I don’t know why people are getting all bent out of shape about it now.

    For what it’s worth, I really don’t care if any soldier, Gay OR Straight, is disciplined or booted out of the military because of inappropriate conduct when on-duty. That’s not what’s at issue here. A qualified soldier should not be at risk for losing his career simply because of who he’s dating on his own time.

    Hold all soldiers to the same standards of professional behavior, regardless of their sexual orientation, and the military will be able to do its job just fine. We don’t need DADT to accomplish that goal.

  21. Dumest article I’ve read in a long time. -David Shedlock- who ever that is, from whatever cave he’s writing from, is a complete idiot.

      1. Lol u blocked him and then told him lolololooloololol! You’re so awesome on the internet! Good for u buddy. Block me too lololololololooololollollooolloooooooollllllooololl haha!

  22. All Ron Paul said in that link is that he thought the question of Homosexuality being a sin requires a complex answer. This is not a flip flop on Ron Paul’s part, in fact, it is very much what any person who follows Ron Paul would expect. Like other difficult issues (abortion for example), Ron Paul, because he is a libertarian, would like States to take a more active role in such legislation, which they should. But to attack Ron Paul’s views when it is clear no critical thinking is being done when reading quotes from other articles is lazy on the part of the writer. It is the writer’s militaristic stance towards people not of the faith that is most disturbing. Being a Christian myself, I am quite annoyed when other Christians are quick to deal out death, judgement and damnation; and have so little focus on grace, hope and love. When Fascism comes to this country, it will be done by those like the writer, with a Bible in one hand a cross in the other. Probably with a republican seal of approval.

  23. Shane I think that you calling yourself a Christian.. Is laughable, “Thou shall not bare false witness”
    But here you are again, LYING yes LYING about Dr. Ron Paul’s postition on DADT, and anyone that
    has followed Dr Paul Laughs at this attack, but what is truly sad is that this your follow up to your attack on him with the Choice issue, Attacking him on not being Pro Life enough, Now you are attacking the man’s Faith!
    Lame, and I hope the little bit of money you are making by selling your integrity helps you sleep at night, I really think that you should not call yourself a Christian, unless of course you are one of those that figure “Hey, Jesus already died for my sin’s so I will just Sin away…” Really sad… I hope the Christians that read your blog will see the lies that you print in the hopes of some sic poltical agenda and I hope they pray for you… Or atleast to pray for your parents and how embaressed they must be of you and your lies!

    1. How I have I attacked Ron Paul’s faith? I haven’t said anything about his faith?

      Also please note I didn’t write this post. You know we have this little thing called a “byline” why don’t you check it out.

  24. “Homosexuality” is a wedge issue which divides people and distracts them from combating their common enemies. Reliance on a monolithic central government to defend morality is a deal with the Devil that conservatives will live to regret. What the Federal government giveth, it can also take away (e.g. Roe v. Wade).

    I believe that the homosexual act is a sin, along with fornication, adultery, and any number of other activities that are commonly practiced throughout society.. But I also believe that we have a God-given right to CHOOSE our moral course.

    The temptation to impose our vision of morality on others is a terrible vice; one that we share with the do-gooder progressive-liberals that would improve our lives by micro-managing our economy and every other facet of our lives “for our own good”.

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
    C.S. Lewis

  25. “Homosexuality” is a wedge issue which divides people and distracts them from combating their common enemies. Reliance on a monolithic central government to defend morality is a deal with the Devil that conservatives will live to regret. What the Federal government giveth, it can also take away (e.g. Roe v. Wade).

    I believe that the homosexual act is a sin, along with fornication, adultery, and any number of other activities that are commonly practiced throughout society.. But I also believe that we have a God-given right to CHOOSE our moral course.

    The temptation to impose our vision of morality on others is a terrible vice; one that we share with the do-gooder progressive-liberals that would improve our lives by micro-managing our economy and every other facet of our lives “for our own good”.

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
    C.S. Lewis

  26. The bible also says that you shouldn’t mix fabrics. Wearing a cloth made out of cotton and polyester is a sin. This would condemn us all to hell. If you work on Sunday, the old testament says you should be stoned to death. How can people still believe this crap?

  27. The bible also says that you shouldn’t mix fabrics. Wearing a cloth made out of cotton and polyester is a sin. This would condemn us all to hell. If you work on Sunday, the old testament says you should be stoned to death. How can people still believe this crap?

  28. The bible also says that you shouldn’t mix fabrics. Wearing a cloth made out of cotton and polyester is a sin. This would condemn us all to hell. If you work on Sunday, the old testament says you should be stoned to death. How can people still believe this crap?

  29. Sarah Palin is no longer punting. She just accepted the ball and re-Tweeted a statement by Tammy Bruce that blasts Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

    Is this true? You betcha!

  30. Sounds like he made the right choice to me. I really like ron paul, and im atheist libertarian. I just like him all the more now that I know he voted to repeal this discriminatory law. All you bible thumpers can eat my shorts. You are welcome to your beliefs, but quit trying to force them on everybody else, oh and read the constitution and bill of rights again. This article was written by a shallow bigot. Lets have more conservatives like ron paul!!! Instead of these mindless fox-aholic imbecillic evangelical douchebags!

  31. The Bible states that homosexuals should be put to death, not that they should keep their homosexuality secret lest they be forbidden to serve in the United States Armed Forces. If the author is prepared to say that homosexuality is a sin–based on the Word of God–then he should also advocate death to those who engage in homosexual acts. He should further advocate death to those who collect sticks on Sunday and wear polyester, because, you know, it is vital that we use the “Word of God” as a “Sword of the Spirit” to defend “Truth, Justice, and the American Way.”

      1. I apologize if I was in error. Perhaps you can educate me. Exactly how should one go about selecting which passages to follow and which passages to ignore?

      2. I didn’t say you should ignore any of them, but ripping verses out of context without understanding the whole of scripture is irresponsible.

        Not to mention lousy biblical hermeneutics.

      3. Well Nick for starters I study the Bible not just pick verses out to use as debate fodder.

        Leviticus 20:13 says that yes homosexuals are to be put to death. I’m not disputing that. How is that verse to be applied today? Who was the law originally given to?

        Your original comment you said, “If the author is prepared to say that homosexuality is a sin–based on the Word of God–then he should also advocate death to those who engage in homosexual acts.”

        And then cited a couple of other things… like wearing polyester, etc.

        Christians are not under the Mosaic law. We are not the nation of Israel, we don’t live in a theocracy.

        It doesn’t make homosexuality any less a sin however, but to say David should advocate capital punishment for homosexuals is ridiculous. Jesus talks a lot about sexual immorality, see Romans 1. But nowhere is civil capital punishment discussed. Because those particular penalties were given to the national of Israel (ancient one, not the modern one). There is a penalty for sin – spiritual death. Jesus however provided a remedy for through His death and resurrection so that whomever would turn from their sin and turn to Jesus through faith they could have forgiveness of sin and His payment for sin applied to them.

        Like I said, you just don’t understand the nature of the law in light of the Gospel. That’s the old covenant, and those who follow Christ are under a new covenant.

      4. First of all, I am glad that you do realize that we are not under a theocracy. That fact alone pretty much throws out of the window any Biblical justification for any US law.

        Secondly, I thought it was Paul–and not Jesus–that spoke against homosexuality in Romans. I do not recall Jesus ever saying anything condemning homosexuality.

        Thirdly, you did not answer my second question. How you sure that it is not you who is doing the cherry picking? If it is true that we do not live under one sort of law written about in Leviticus, is not it also true that we do not live under the laws governed Paul? In other words, what is the mechanism by which you choose to cipher through the relevant passages and the less relevant ones? Is it whichever is more edifying to a modern audience? (Because that’s what it sounds like to me.)

      5. Jesus spoke against sexual immorality which encompasses a variety of different things. The Apostle Paul’s letter is just as much the Word of God as the Gospels.

        “That fact alone pretty much throws out of the window any Biblical justification for any US law.” Tell you what let’s make murder, stealing and a whole litany of crimes legal because the Bible condemns it.

        Do you believe in Democracy? Then people who vote can use whatever justification they would like to influence legislative action, when they vote, or when opposing certain governmental policies.

        I’m not cherry picking I just understand the Law’s relationship to the Gospel. You don’t.

        Richard Pratt explains it pretty well when he said, “The entire law is still applicable because the entire law reflects God’s unchanging character (compare Matt. 22:37-40). Nevertheless, the way in which we are to obey the law has changed signficantly due to the coming of Christ and changes in other historical circumstances. For example, the sacrificial laws still apply because God still demands an adequate sacrifice for our sins (Heb. 9:26; 10:12,26; 1 John 2:1-2). Nevertheless, we observe those laws today not by offering animals according to the Mosaic system, but by trusting Christ as our sufficient sacrifice (1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; Heb. 9:26; 10:12; 1 John 2:1-2) — Christ’s one sacrifice for all time continues to satisfy the requirements of actual sacrifice. Similarly, just as Israel was to render civil obedience to laws pertaining to Israel’s theocracy, we are now to render obedience to Jesus the king, the ruler of our Christian theocracy. The principles of God’s character that the Old Testament laws reflected have not changed, but the ways in which we are to act in accordance with his character have changed. We must interpret all the Old Testament laws in light of changes that have taken place in the history of redemption (Christ has come), differences between our culture/society and that of the original audience, and personal differences between each of us as individuals. This is not to say that truth is relative, but rather that application of truth must take into account many things which are not made explicit in the law itself.”

      6. “Jesus spoke against sexual immorality which encompasses a variety of different things.”

        Jesus spoke against economic immorality which encompasses a variety of different things. Jesus spoke against social immorality which encompasses a variety of different things. This would be all good except that I am not talking about a variety of different but one thing in particular.

        “Tell you what let’s make murder, stealing and a whole litany of crimes legal because the Bible condemns it.”

        Your logic is flawed. I am not saying that because the Bible condemns homosexuality that we should therefore adopt or not adopt the same policy as it pertains to US law. I am simply agreeing with you that this is not a theocracy, and therefore whatever laws or justifications are in the Bible should have no bearing it all on the laws which govern our country. Murder is bad for many reasons, it is illegal because a society that allows murder is not psychically sustainable. Same with theft.

        “I’m not cherry picking I just understand the Law’s relationship to the Gospel. You don’t.”

        You know, Shane, for all your accusations that I, personally, do not understand something, I find it ironic that in order to finally answer my question, you go for an outside authority. I mean, for someone who has been boasting about his alleged expertise throughout this debate, the wholesale quoting of one Richard Pratt seems kind of weak. Nevertheless…

        “The principles of God’s character that the Old Testament laws reflected have not changed, but the ways in which we are to act in accordance with his character have changed. We must interpret all the Old Testament laws in light of changes that have taken place in the history of redemption (Christ has come), differences between our culture/society and that of the original audience, and personal differences between each of us as individuals.”

        Yeah, so my suspension was correct. Make the Bible more edifying for a modern audience.

      7. Nick, doesn’t the Bible also condemn divorce? Adultery? Lust? Greed? Not to mention anger, bitterness and unforgiveness.

        We are going to have a small armed forces if we kick everybody out that fails one of those markers.

        Just sayin…

  32. Um, or it could mean he changed his mind because people from his district came into his office and told him the administration of the rule was not what he thought it was. He wants an across the board nonfraternization rule which would address disruptive activities by any personnel. As you point out, he has always stuck to his principles. That hasn’t changed now.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Grassley Says Kavanaugh Vote Set For Monday if Ford Does Not Agree to Testify

U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) says the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination on Monday if Christine Blasey Ford does not agree to testify.

Calling Her Bluff (Updated)

The latest with Speaker Pelosi’s little scuffle with the CIA… House Republicans…

Ron Paul Takes on the Transportation Security Agency

Congressman Ron Paul said enough is enough and has introduced the American…

Pig Flying Alert – I agree with Feinstein

In an L.A. Times article, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who starts this…