Soulforce Right to Serve update from Charlottesville, VA, organizer Wyatt Fore:
So, we arrived today bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, anticipating a full day of Justice work. We took care of logistical stuff from around 0900-1030, then went through our press conference at about 1045. At this point, Alvin, Rachel and I went to go enlist.
However, things took an interesting twist when we attempted to enter the Recruiting Center. Despite having watched people enter and exit all morning, we found the door locked. Symbolic of the discrimination carried out by the US Military under DADT, we were locked out.
So our sit-in become a sit-out. And there we sat. And sat. And sat some more.
That is, until the Police arrived. Despite our politeness, the police decided that our fellow RTSers had in fact taken the recruiting center ‘hostage.’
That’s right, HOSTAGE. Who knew that nonviolent justice-seekers were comparable to terrorists? After complying with minor police demands [to avoid much more serious charges], we backed from the door, and sat the rest of the day, effectively shutting the center down for the day.
I think the most revealing conversation of the day came from an out-of-uniform recruiter, who came later in the day apparently to take care of business inside the Center:
Wyatt: So are you opening back up?
Recruiter: No.
Wyatt: But we have appointments. [yes... they really did have appointments]
Recruiter: No you don’t.After reviewing the day, we determined the day had been successful. However, Rachel, Alvin, and I remain determined to talk with Military Recruiters, and will continue tomorrow morning, again at 9 AM. If, again, they choose to shut down the Recruiting Center rather than allowing openly gay individuals to enter, we will again sit-out the Center.
Technorati Tags: Soulforce, Right to Serve Campaign, Military, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, sit-in, Charlottesville, Virginia, Wyatt Fore
September 28th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
I have a question. I could really care less who serves in the military or any other government job, but when thinking about DADT I thought about some problems that might occur.
Correct me if I am wrong (perhaps I have just seen too many movies), but barracks contain all of the (at least lower rank) soldiers. In training and elsewhere close quarters are inevitable and this includes showering, working out and other situations correct?
I had brought something like this up before with someone else along with the fact that we seperate men and women as a result. Its distractiing and could potentially be embarassing for men and women to be in these situations together.
How does this work with openly gay individuals in the army? The response I was met with earlier was basically “How dare you say LGBT people have no self control”. This was interesting and I thought about it. I came to the conclusion, and rightly so, that no amount of self control can stop natural bodily reactions to the things named above (if I was in the shower with a bunch of women I would be hard pressed to not be atracted to them). It would also be a distraction in training. It appears to be the case then that it is better for all parties if sexual preference is just left unknown. If not, then how would one solve this seeming dilemma? Should women and men be grouped together instead of being seperated?
Just curious,
Ed
September 28th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
There are already gay and straight men living, working, training, showering, sleeping and serving together. If same-sex attraction or anything is really a problem for effectiveness, it would already be presenting itself. Gay people are already serving… they just have to hide their sexual orientation and actively, on a daily basis, lie about themselves, their lives and their families.
So what would the difference be on gay and straight people serving together if DADT was repealled… Not much, except that gay people wouldn’t be forced to lie anymore.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
“Gay people are already serving… they just have to hide their sexual orientation and actively, on a daily basis, lie about themselves, their lives and their families.”
This is my point though. If nobody knows they are gay then how can we accurately say problems won’t occur? Again, I think men and women being put together is a good example. That would certainly be hard on both parties. If, on the other hand, putting men and women together was inevitable, but nobody could tell who was who unless they were told, then it appears to be best to keep it to yourself.
Again I would ask why we can’t just put everyone together if these situations don’t matter?