This report says all that needs to be said.

This is a policy that Ron Paul called "decent." This is a policy Obama said he would end. Guess what? Obama lied, again.

His chance to put up.

Some of the true believers in Ron Paul have insisted that he supports the right of gay people to serve in the military on the same terms as everyone else. This in spite of him calling the policy that excludes gays "a decent policy". When asked about the policy in one debate he rambled on about group rights which is not the issue here. It is not claiming special rights but equal rights and libertarians are supposed to support that -- well libertarians do. The question is whether Ron Paul does.

In his debate answer he went into a diversion about how anyone who is disruptive should be excluded from the military. Who would disagree but then Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the policy that excludes gays, is not about disruption at all. A completely non-disruptive gay person can be thrown out of the military if someone discovers he is gay. At the same time a disruptive heterosexual would not be excluded under the policy. It was never about disruption.

In the public debates Paul has not said anything about gays serving on equal terms in the military and when a reporter, at one debate, asked the Republican candidates to raise their hand if any of them would support that right, Ron Paul looked at the floor and held his hands firmly to his side. Of course, off of national television he can sound very different. Politicians are good at that. In some private discussions he has sounded as if he would support allowing gays to serve in the military. To be precise he sounds that way when when someone who supports equality before the law questions him. So does or doesn't he? Is he a libertarian on this issue or conservative?

There is a bill in Congress to repeal Clinton's Don't Ask, Don't Tell, H.R.1246. It grants no special rights. It merely says the military can't chuck someone out over being gay. Of course they can still chuck out anyone who is disruptive in the real sense of the word. This legislation has 136 co-sponsors. But Ron Paul is not one of them.

I won't believe that Mr. Paul is actually taking a libertarian position on equality before the law until he signs on to repeal this anti-libertarian policy. I confess that I would be surprised if he did, and slightly impressed. I don't think he really has it in him. But time will tell. The bill doesn't raise taxes, it's not unconstitutional, it doesn't grant any special rights. So I can't think of any libertarian excuse to not be a co-sponsor. But I won't underestimate the ability of some people to be creative in such matters -- and that is especially true of politicians no matter who they are.

I would like to see some of his genuine libertarian supporters ask him if he will co-sponsor H.R. 1246. A simple yes or no response will do. I suspect he'll give answers about how he has to investigate it, blah, blah, blah. That is merely diversionary and an attempt to avoid the issue. I say that because the bill was introduced last February. There has been plenty of time to research it. And he has been asked about the issue several times, including in debates, so it's not just some issue that no one is interested in. As a presidential candidate he should know about the policy and the act (though his answer in the debate indicated he had no idea what the policy actually said).

The bill is not long and merely says that the government will treat people who are gay, straight or bisexual the same. It grants no privileges or benefits. It doesn't cost taxpayer money and, in fact, will save millions spent to chuck out gay people. It is about as libertarian a bill as you can expect from government. It just says the government should leave people alone in this one area. So will Ron Paul cosponsor the bill? I would say the odds are against it.

Now I know many of the Paulists will complain because I dared have a negative comment about their beloved Saint Paul. Sorry folks but don't complain to me. Just ask your candidate to give a firm answer on whether he will support the repeal of this very unlibertarian policy. He has refused to support it over the last eight months. And based on his refusal, so far, to support the bill, I think it is fair to say that his position on equality of rights before the law for gay people is a negative one. He doesn't support such equality. All those claims to the contrary are just so much hot air as long as Paul is refusing to actually sign on to the bill.

Paul can prove he supports such a equality very easily, with almost no effort at all. And I think it fair to assume that his refusal to do so, so far, indicates his actual position, no matter what he might say when he thinks it will win him a vote. I won't be holding my breath for the press release that he signed on to the bill.

Don't ask, don't tell, don't think.

It is interesting to watch the mental gymnastics used to justify what amounts to prejudice. It was first claimed that gay soldiers simply couldn’t do the job; that gay people are intrinsically incapable of performing military service. That myth has been blown out of the water by the vast numbers of gay military personnel who have done their jobs and done them well.

The second argument that I have heard used is not that gay service members are incapable of doing the job but that other service members feel uncomfortable working with them. That argument basically would make gays the only members of society who are denied the right to serve in the military based entirely on the prejudices of others.

But that argument is failing as polls show that young people, in particular, have no such negative feelings toward gay men and women. The actual individuals with whom gay service personnel would work are the least prejudicial of the general public. But prejudice increases with age. One suspects it is not the actual combat soldiers who feel uncomfortable as much as it is the older officers who sit in offices running things.

I spoke with a US military officer, a friend of mine, about this matter about a year ago when visiting his military base in Germany. He informed me that the vast majority of soldiers he works with have no problems working with gay men or women. While he is heterosexual he said he was often assumed to be gay and never had problems from anyone because of it -- including while stationed in Iraq. The reality is that it is mostly old farts in the Pentagon and Congress, along with the Bible-beating bigots, who are upset with gay military personnel, not soldiers.

One example of one such old fart is Marine Gen. Peter Pace who doesn’t want to change military policy regarding homosexuals. He argues simply that homosexuality is immoral and therefore immoral soldiers should be dismissed. Does he really want to open that can of worms?

Let us say that homosexuality is immoral. Many people also think that smoking, drinking, dancing, Hollywood movies, masturbation, oral sex, and fatty foods are immoral. Usually the line drawn on such matters is whether or not the actions in question violate the rights of others -- not whether some dinosaur has some old view and can’t accept change. And there is a long, time honored moral tradition (which I don’t subscribe to) which says that being in the military is itself immoral.

Pace is not a logical man by any means. Prejudice is rarely rational. Let us follow as he jumps through some hoops to explain his bigotry. He says: “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”

He doesn’t mean immoral in any way. He doesn’t exclude fornicators, drinkers, smokers, atheists, masturbators, gluttons, the envious, and a host of others, consider immoral by many people, from military service. He defines morality in a way that excludes gays and allows most other “immoral” people because they aren’t gay.

And Pace is clear that he means homosexuality mostly: “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.” Gee, does that mean if they involve three people they are okay?

Now this old man says that he does support the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. This reveals the real problem. Under “don’t ask, don’t tell” a soldier is allowed to serve, even if he is gay, put will be thrown out if his homosexuality is discovered. So Pace is saying he doesn’t mind having gay personnel in the military provided he just doesn’t know they are gay.

So if their “immorality” is something he is unaware of then he doesn’t care. Isn’t that condoning it? I mean if you actively overlook it, knowing full well it might be happening, then aren’t you condoning it? So it is not “immorality” that bothers him after all.

It isn’t the immorality of what these people do in the privacy of their bedrooms that bothers Pace. He just doesn’t like being around someone he knows is gay. He’s happy for them to be immoral provided he is unaware of it. This has nothing to do with immorality since he doesn’t want to stop the immorality. It merely has to do with the visceral disgust a bigot feels toward people they don’t like.

That’s why all those other immoral acts are ignored by Pace -- he doesn’t have prejudicial views toward drinkers, masturbators, fornicators or the like. It’s gays he doesn’t like and therefore he wants his prejudices cemented into law.

It’s time the dinosaur retire.

Right wing confab honors gay porn star.

We all know about the CPAC conference, the big conference of Right-wing luminaries that is held every year. It was hear that Screech Coulter went into her tirade about John Edwards being a faggot. It was also here that they honored Corporal Matt Sanchez with the Jeane Kirkpatrict Academic Freedom Award. In fact here is Sanchez with the Screech herself.



But it seems that try as hard they want the Right can’t get away from the gay issue. Apparently the man the conservatives just honored is a gay porn star. Or was a gay porn star. I don’t know if he is gay or not. But he supposedly sold his sexual services to men at one time. (This is supposedly the ad he used to do so.) We do know he had sex with men and that is enough to have him thrown out of the military.

Now I would like to see the Right deal with this. The man is worthy enough for them to give him an award but at the same time he shouldn’t be allowed in the military. We will see what Mr. Sanchez has to say about all this on his blog. We will also see what the military does about this. As far as I know Sanchez is not denying the story but confirming it. I suspect he won't be invited back to the Bill O'Reilly show. If you absolutely must see some evidence of Mr. Sanchez's career go here.