No Gays for a Day

[theatokos]

No Gays for a Day

If only I worked on Fridays. And I don't really go out much anyway. But - spread the word folks!

Comments

[miss-swamp.livejournal.com]

But it's the 10th now, which is a Wednesday.
I would love to tell my principal that's why I'm taking a personal day.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

Oh, hm. Well, Wed works even better for me! Woot!

[snowcalla.livejournal.com]

Just a note of irony here -
"No Gays for a Day will demonstrate what it would be like if -- as so much of the non-coastal U.S. seems to desire -- gays just disappeared." Excuse me, but isn't most of the current outrage happening because the coastal US - California specifically - passed a Marriage = 1 man 1 woman amendment. Yet....yet....it is the NON-COASTAL parts of the USA who are just so bigoted and need to be more like those enlightened folks who live on the coast.

The writer can go fuck himself. Repeatedly.

After all...it wasn't at our Saturday rally that people shouted racial slurs at black people taking part in the protest. The very people attempting to stand shoulder to shoulder with them. Yeah....that happened at the rallys on the coast.

I so wish I could be more enlightened like they are.

http://www.insidesocal.com/outinhollywood/2008/11/prop-8-update-weekend-protests.html

As for the No Gays for a Day - I have to ask - what will that accomplish? Punishing employers who aren't bigots, who hire based on qualifications and not sexual orientation? If they want to take a vacation or sick day and find this a worthy reason - that's cool and I support that. But what will it accomplish?

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

Your points:
*Yup, people fuck over the "fly over" states all the time (and I hate that phrase). Left coast liberals are totally ignorant of the inland. Absolutely.

*I think there are many who understand that discrimination and oppression hurt every body and that blaming black people or [insert X block here] is just racist blaming. As always, idiots fuck it up for everyone.

*I think visibility is a good thing. Yes, it will inconvenience nice, non-bigots. But protests hinder good people just trying to get from point A to point B. I think this kind of civil disobedience is a good thing. What will it accomplish? Well, nothing entirely of itself, but part of a greater movement it can be very effective.

I am sure that because of the self-imposed bubble I live in I will forget when Dec 10 comes around.

[snowcalla.livejournal.com]

but do you think gays are not already visible? That if America just noticed them, it would accomplish giving thier rights.

In the case of illegal aliens - they are invisible. They work in service, back-of-the-house jobs and so it wasn't easily seen how needed thier labor is to running the country. Also - economics is VERY tied into the illegal alien issue. Many of them are forced to take shitty jobs for next to no pay. And the point was "You all need us to keep doing these shitty jobs for low pay. Because if we were shipped back to Mexico - you'd be fucked". The protest hurt (economically) those employers who hired illegals for low pay because they wanted cheap, hard-working staff that are powerless to complain when they suffer abuses.

Gay persons don't have those issues. They aren't invisible. In the case of males, Gays are better of economically than the general population. They, on average, attain a higher level of education than the general populations. They also are in positions of power.

So this type of protest, an economic protest, is the wrong type of protest. It hurts/annoys the wrong people. It speaks to the wrong issues. It won't resonate with the American people because it will just seem..."off". It doesn't speak to the injustice that Gay couples suffer - it doesn't present it in a way that people can't look away from.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

You make some very compelling points, and I hadn't thought about that the economic power issues.

[miss-swamp.livejournal.com]

I think gays are invisible in many sectors. Teachers can still lose their jobs in some states for being gay. Members of the military and male athletes are certainly encouraged to hide their sexuality. Divorced parents can lose custody because of their orientation. Etc.

I agree that the economic impact is different, but I also think it would be good for those who voted for Prop 8 and its cousins to see that gay folks aren't just in stereotypically gay jobs, but also serve as cashiers and their kids' favorite teachers and police officers.

[snowcalla.livejournal.com]

Divorced parents can lose custody because of their orientation.

That portion is incorrect. Please don't spread that around.



However - if a person fears being fired if thier employer found out they were gay, do you think they will stay home on December 10th or go to work as usual? So how does that affect the effectiveness of the protest?

And what is a stereotypically "gay" job? I think people know, work with, and see gays working all kinds of jobs.


Look...I'm not saying that people shouldn't DO something. But how about doing something effective? The Gay Rights Groups had a very effective campaign going in the mid-late 1990's. It was a well oiled machine. Serious progress. But they did a 180 and abandoned those tactics and now look where we are.

So how about we go back to what actually worked? How about that? Cause this...this is like banging your head against the wall.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

What do you suggest?

The more I think about this protest the more I am in agreement with you, Snowcalla. I have mostly lived in places where, if even not everyone was thrilled with the gays, it was safe to be out. So, staying home from work in such a protest would be supported, if annoying. However, in the places where solidarity is most important it probably isn't safe to stay home from work.... not buying stuff is far easier - but the work thing could be problematic.

Hmmm..... *rethinking*

[snowcalla.livejournal.com]

What worked in the past was two different but related topics and was based on this simple goal - Get most of America to sit this fight out. An active, engaged America is an America that does weird, unpredictable stuff that can bit you in the ass. A calm, fairly uninterested America will let you push forward an agenda.


1. The stories of CHILDREN talking about how they love thier mom(s)/dad(s) and they can't bear to be parted from them. How hard it is for them (the kids)when thier parents aren't allowed to BE married. How much safter and well-cared for children are when they are in a home with two married adults. It was framing the argument of how marriage is for the benefit, financial care, and protection of children. That is an agrument that is already won. Some people think that kids shouldn't be raised by gays, but those are few and not enough to matter. Especially when it is pointed out that so many children need to be adopted into loving homes. (Yes, I know many kids are born to gay parents - but the adoption argument is the clincher.)

2. Stories about how gay couples just want to be able to do "X". Visit one another in the hospital. Buy a house. Provide for thier family after they die. List it out. Have a story attached. How could a person object to any of that? Wouldn't you want to be visited in the hospital? To have someone hold your hand while you die?

Those two areas were working like hot cakes in the late 1990's. Civil Unions were about to be passed in multiple states. Then it was decided to go for broke - go for marriage. And the shit-storm happened. We have what...30 states now that have banned Gay Marriage since 2000? It was a stupid decision, and how the Gay Rights groups went about it was totally fucked. (They screwed over the very politicians who were sticking thier necks out to get the Civil Unions passed - most of them lost thier seats because of that mess)

We can't go back 100% to what we did in the 90's. But we can calm everything down, regroup, focus on either the actual rights we want or on neutralizing the discussion by moving to "protect" marriage by removing th State from it and making the State only responsible for Civil Unions for all people. Many churches are ready to support both of these actions.

[miss-swamp.livejournal.com]

Okay, the not-losing-custody thing must be pretty new since the HRC hasn't updated their state-by-state guide (http://www.hrc.org/issues/parenting/custody/custody_laws.asp)?

I know I'm not the only queer teacher in my building. But we tend stay in our little bubble to avoid "I'll pray for you" comments from the principal, even though state and local laws protect us. This might be a big enough incentive to come out, together. You're right that it's not enough, but I think it's worthwhile.

[snowcalla.livejournal.com]

HRC's guide is not so much out of date as it is not taking court language into consideration. Most states do not have language that specifies that the court cannot take sexual practices of the parents into consideration - because they sometimes DO need to take that into account. If a paretn is having sex or being very sexual in front of a child then you bet they will take it into account - straight or gay. When you see wording like "Best interests of the child" then you know you are on pretty firm grounds for orientation itself not being allowed as a consideration.

There ARE local judges who make all kinds of bullshit decisions that are not based in law but thier own prejudice. When those cases come up, HRC quite rightly flags them and notes the state. We have a judge in our area that screws over men in custody cases - and there have been some bad results. But the bastard keeps getting re-elected. That doesn't mean that Minnesota courts discriminate - Minnesota courts are pretty good on Father's rights.

But yes...if this is something that helps you band together and make a public statement of "We are here and damn good at our jobs, thankyouverymuch" then that is a good thing.

I'm not so much discouraging....as I am....let's all put our energies towards things that have proved successful in the past that we abandoned for no good reason.