Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Fails

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell: Shame on Ron Paul

Before the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Vote...

After the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Vote

While I don’t have to agree with everything a politician says or agree with every vote he casts in order to be a supporter, I’ve finally reached the breaking point with Ron Paul. I was already disgusted with him for cosponsoring a bill which would repeal the ban on using federal funds for needle exchange programs. He stopped always voting “no” on Department of Health and Human Services appropriations bills and has instead abstained from voting on these bills through which Planned Parenthood gets most of its federal funding. Then he endorsed pro-war, big spending, bailout-voting incumbent Republicans (e.g. Lamar Smith) running against their pro-liberty, non-interventionalist challengers (e.g. Stephen Schoppe). This is out of step even with the secular portion of the Tea Party movement and its anti-incumbency sentiments. All the attention that he has been getting since he ran for President is going to his head.

There was a time when Republicans were in favor of repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), but this meant repealing it in favor of actually asking the question and denying those who answered in the affirmative that they were homosexuals from participating in the military. After having made statements that he was in favor of keeping gays out of the military in his ’08 presidential campaign, he has digressed into absolute antinomianism and voted for repeal of the DADT policy. That was the last straw for me.

The Founding Fathers recognized that God is the Supreme Authority, and that the Bible is His book[1]. They also recognized the God gives everyone a conscience so that they are without excuse[2]. This is what they mean by “the Laws of Nature”[3,4] and the “self-evident” truths[4]. It isn’t, therefore, even necessary to know the Bible in order to know that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful[5]. And it isn’t just a bad habit like smoking or drinking alcohol excessively. Even Benjamin Franklin recognized “that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it”[6]. The Bible story of Achan, illustrates the principle that God can withdraw his hand of protection from an army at war even because of one of its members’ sin[7].

I will still go to Ron Paul meetups (they are not really about Ron Paul, but mostly about his economic and small government agenda), read the Daily Paul and Campaign for Liberty websites. I still agree with 97% of what he says. Repealing DADT doesn’t violate the Constitution. He is still the most constitutionalist of all the congressmen. But the Constitution isn’t everything. (And even on the Constitution, he sold us out with his endorsements of unfit candidates.) Most of the time libertarian principles agree with the Bible, (he even is still more socially conservative than most Republicans), but Ron Paul has forgotten that it is God who has made our nation great, not some abstract philosophical principle which could be lived out by ungodly men. I might even still vote for him in 2012 if he runs for president, but I will not donate any money or time to his campaign. I have removed the Ron Paul bumper sticker from my car.

[1] “Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!”

John Adams, Works, Vol. II, pp. 6-7, diary entry for February 22, 1756.

[2] Romans 1:20 says, “For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse”

[3] Romans 2:14-16 says, “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”

[4] Declaration of Independence

[5] Romans 1:24-27 says, “Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.”

[6] Portrait of Ben Franklin, Constitutional Convention of 1787, original manuscript of this speech

[7] See Joshua 7.

More on Ron Paul’s Positions Marriage

Since today is Valentine's Day, I decided to continue my discussion on Ron Paul's position on marriage.

Suppose two men were to put on tuxedos and have a ceremony in which they pledged themselves to each other. Ron Paul would not throw these two men in jail for this. They could call themselves “married” or “united” or whatever they would want. However, RP would not be in favor of issuing them marriage licenses or recognition of the relationship as a marriage in a court of law. He would not be in favor of encouraging sodomy, but would not be in favor of banning it either. (My source for this information is a video which can be obtained on his website.)

Having said this, one must keep in mind that RP is a strong believer in states’ rights. The federal courts, in his opinion, should have nothing to say in the matter. He opposed the Lawrence v Texas decision which struck down a Texas law banning sodomy.

When asked about “don’t ask don’t tell”, RP articulated his position on this quite well. He said that, in this country, it is unfortunate that people have begun to think that their rights come from being apart of a certain group. The real reason that you have your rights is that you are a person, not because you are gay, black, or a woman. RP went on to say that when homosexual behavior in military becomes disruptive, we need to deal with it. He also said that when heterosexual behavior in the military becomes disruptive, we need to deal with this also. (I think, for this reason, women and homosexuals should not be allowed in the military at all, but I don’t know what RP thinks about this.)

The most interesting position RP takes is that the government should not define marriage. His reasoning is that, only God should define it. If some judge were to misinterpret the law and construe a homosexual relationship as being a marriage, that judge would be an activist judge. The dictionary definition should be used and we shouldn’t have to redefine it into law. If we give government the power to redefine it, then we are saying that we have the right to say marriage is whatever we want it to be. This sets a bad precedent, in RP’s opinion. I’m not sure I agree, but I would like to learn more about this argument. This isn’t the first person that I have heard this from. (Michael Peroutka was.)

The Libertarian Party platform says that the Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage and therefore it should be repealed. But RP would disagree with this since he supported DOMA. The LP platform goes on to imply that basically every law there is that contains the concept of marriage or distinguishes gender should be abolished. While I agree that marriage should be a basically private covenant with which the government should rarely interfere and that 99% laws concerning marriage are unnecessary and manipulative, the LP platform clearly throws out the baby with the bath. We need to keep the traditional Biblical principles of marriage in our laws and get rid of the rest.