0 votes

Response to Chuck Baldwin’s article regarding “Open Gays In The Military”

Saturday, I received a thought provoking email from a reader of Liberty Pulse about a Chuck Baldwin article we posted. The response offered compelling points and I asked him if we could post his email on our blog, he graciously agreed…


As an avid reader of your site, I sincerely appreciate all that you do and the goals you aim to accomplish. Those goals match my own, and the aggregation of freedom-minded publications is a laudable and necessary step in further educating the people and providing supporters of freedom with content they may otherwise miss.

Liberty Pulse recently posted an article by Chuck Baldwin (http://libertypulse.com/article/5039) decrying the potential loss of the military’s ability to “out” homosexuals (”sodomites,” Dr. Baldwin writes, “that they discover among the troops”). The position and argument from the article is in favor of maintaining the state’s “right” to intrude upon the private life of an individual, and subsequently punish that individual for what it finds! This is the absolute antithesis of liberty!

The notions contained within the article advocate the intolerance of those with differences from the majority, and that somehow by insuring liberty for one individual it negatively impacts those of any other person. This is wholly untrue, and I am at odds as to how this in any way benefits arguments in favor of individual liberty.

It it upsetting that the liberty movement could...


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Solution: end standing armies

It is time we started THIS debate in our county...even this website.

Without standing armies then the gay issue would take care of itself...if we were under attack...you would not care if your fellow defender of our homeland was gay...as long as he passed the ammunition.

There you go

It sounds like you're trying to "restore constitutional government to the United States of America" as there is only a provision for a standing navy. Good call.

Deductive reasoning? Black

Deductive reasoning? Black crows???? you lost me.....

Things are only impossible until they are not.
-- Jean Luc Picard

You need to be able to connect the dots between

this thread, your Alexander comment, and my Ghengis Khan comment -- with the crows to "get it"


group rights over

individuals rights? When did that happen... during the apples, bananas, and pears?

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson

men women and others

The men and women of the military (when I was in it) do not sleep together nor bath and shower together.
If gays are in the military they should have separate quarters to sleep and shower so as not to be invasive on the rights of the normal people.
The constitution was put in place to protect the rights of the minorities not the power of the majority.
Marriage is not covered in the constitution so it is left to the states and the people.
We may not endorse minority views, but we must protect
the minority from the oppression by the majority.
This is a representative republic.

This is NOT a democracy for example the majority rules in a democracy.
If this was a democracy and someone proposed that we shave the legs of all of the men.
And if a majority voted yes then that is what would happen.

However friends remember there are more women in this country than men so if majority rules and if each sex stuck together on all the votes the women would always control the out come.
Is that what you want? Sometimes.

Liberty is our campaigns gift to the world it is our manifest destiny.
Freedom is a movement who's time has come. Our campaign will lead world wide freedom.


showers? Will have to tax the people some more to build more facilities. So what if they are gay, are you worried about being attacked by gay men in the shower, come on man. These people are professionals...again bad behavior regardless of sexual orientation should be delt with.

why separate

the men and women then?

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul


would make me happy if I was in the Air Force cause most U.S. Marine women are not that attractive. I do see where you are going with this but your statement does not sway me yet.

Right of the state to intrude?

I just don't understand why they would want to intrude.

With or without "don't ask, don't tell", homosexuals will join the military and can be outed by third parties. This means the military is full of people who could be blackmailed at any time. That does not serve anyone's definition of national security.

Defend Liberty!

Too bad we can't conjure up

Too bad we can't conjure up the spirit of Alexander the Great and ask him if being gay inhibited is combat effectiveness.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
-- Jean Luc Picard

Actually Genghis Khan was far far far more effective then

Alexander and Khan's Law Codes not only forbade gays in military, but it was punishable by death.

Not that I agree with that, but I was commenting on the "one crow is black, two crows are black, therefore all crows are black" kind of deductive reasoning you got going on here ;-)

Oh, there are white crows.

I think the Brown-Shirts were mostly gay, weren't they?

Ernest Rohm...

the head of the Brown Shirts, was gay, and that is why Hitler had him killed. Not that I agree with that, but agreeing with your point on deductive reasoning.

Roehm was not killed for that reason

He was in charge of 2,500,000 storm troopers.

He help to found the Brown Shirts.

Read Pink Swastika

Hitler's Bully-Boys

Why am I being blocked

I've been blocked twice from responding

Historian Frank Rector writes of a film made by the SS "that was secretly made for the enjoyment of a select coterie of Nazis showing a wild drunken orgy of beautiful boys and handsome young men being whipped, raped and murdered by the SS."

The Brown Shirts were indeed homo-sexuals and they ran the Nazi Youth Programs -- after the war there were 1000's of reports of child molestation.

Famous Nazi Hunter Wiesel reported that while in Auschwitz he saw first had the sexual predilictions for young boys by Nazi guardsmen.

You really don't have to

include a disclaimer that you disagree with something Hitler did. We at the DP are a pretty onry bunch, but we'll assign the positive intent on that one on our own.

Defend Liberty!

As a U.S. Marine

who served 8 years and one tour in Iraq, serving with gays would not bother me. Bad behavior is bad behavior regardless of sexual orientation. If I am being hit on by a gay man in a fox hole, it would be obvious the mission is not priority and should be sent back to the rear (no pun intended) but this should apply to anyone not putting the mission first. I just don't see how this would affect anything, it is not like you are gonna see Richard Simmons doing sweating to the oldies in the barracks..I just don't see the issue here. Ron Paul said it at a presidential debate: bad behavior is bad regardless who does it. It should not matter if they are gay or not. Doesn't other countries allow it and I don't see their military coming to an end....

I was in the Marines as well

I was in the Marines as well and also did 1 tour in Iraq. I just think it would be weird when it came time for pictures at the Marine Corps Ball and see 2 dudes in Dress Blues taking pictures holding each other...

If you where in the Marines then you know we have the UCMJ and if that doesn't change then its not gonna fly (openly gay)

Murrieta, Ca

BMWJIM's picture

I have been a Marine since 1976 and I don't

give a rats ass about the Marine Corps ball. You will never see two marines in dress blues dancing. Your argument is a false flag.

This argument doesn't fly. I do not condone the idea of being gay/gay marriage etc but!. It is a lifestyle choice and as long as my back and my family is protected then what is the issue.

A patriot is a patriot is a patriot. This issue is being blown up for a reason. I guess as you get older you take a more open approach to life. I have met many gay individuals in my life. I swore an oath to protect them as well as you. Don't you think they could swear and defend that same oath. I do!

1976-1982 USMC, Having my hands in the soil keeps me from soiling my hands on useless politicians.


It's good to see that there is still some common sense in today's world. If you're able to follow the orders given to you, and are willing give your life to protect the liberty of your country (which might mean disobeying the orders given to you), then you should be allowed to join, case closed. Last time I checked the point of being a soldier was not playing dress-up and prancing around at a dance.

Ron Paul is in favor of "Don't ask - Don't tell"

as per the Presidential debates.

I agree with "spaderj1913" (above) in spirit.

This would be a moot issue in a Free-Society.

In a Free-Society we would only EVER have soldiers on our own borders or patroling our own coastal waters.

They'd be "in port" or near their home every day -- the issue of "sport sex" would be less of an issue if everyone was close to home. Whether between man-woman or man-man or woman-woman.

I don't

think he actually said he was for that policy just that bad behavior should not matter who it is. I don't support kicking people out based on sexual orientation. I wonder why people whould deny someone the ability to protect them...

Spader: No RP was/is in favor of "Don't Ask - Don't Tell"


Yes of course he re-focuses the answer that disruptive behavior must be delt with regardless of hetero or homo-sexual predilictions; nevertheless, he says the current system is good.

RP is very pragmatic and I was in the military also; I can tell you it's always better for young gay men to not "out" themselves around young hetero men and yes young hetero men (most of them) would not publically shower with gay men if they knew or had a choice.

For the first time...

I disagree with Baldwin for the many reasons stated below. Though I am disappointed in his beliefs, I wonder what Dr. Paul thinks of his good friends words? I know it is none of my business and it should not matter what Dr. Paul thinks, but I am curious to know what Dr. Paul would say about the article.

Rand Paul 2016 for Peace

Dr. Paul has stated what he

Dr. Paul has stated what he thinks.. He says the Federal government should be able to tell a person what they can and can not do in their own bedroom. He said that the STATES are the ones who should make the laws on gay marriage, etc. If you could ask Ron Paul personally, I would bet he is against the act of homosexuality. Ron Paul has applied his Christian beliefs to what he does in Congress. Example. The theory of Christian just war. Sorry folks, but being a libertarian does not mean you have liberty from morality.

“Defiance of God’s Law will eventually bring havoc to a society.” - Dr. Ron Paul

reedr3v's picture

You misrepresent Dr. Paul to further

your peculiar viewpoint. Sorry rebel, being a christian bigot does not mean you have liberty to dictate morality to others.

For all of you - FYI - my original title has been removed

Ayn Rand, developer of the philosophy of Objectivism asserted that a group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess.

The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. She maintained that since only an individual man can possess rights, the expression "individual rights" is a redundancy (which one has to use for purposes of clarification in today’s intellectual chaos), but the expression "collective rights" is a contradiction in terms.

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

Update: 9:10 PM EST

My post has been edited, censored by DP. Most likely by the Canadian legalizeliberty. This site is becoming a questionable place for liberty.

"For all of you" is the only part left after the censors at Daily Paul where done. Perhaps Nystrom could explain why censorship at DP has become so prevalent. And how censoring promotes liberty and The Constitution?