Lyndiddy (Lyndiddy) says:
(Posted November 17th, 2008 at 4:54 pm)

Ok good, I thought maybe I just didn’t look at the paper hard enough. Yet another indignity we must suffer.

As far as calling in gay, it’s too bad doing that would be so counterproductive given my position. I’m not sure how I feel about the necessity or use of such an event. The problem is when working with a population that is already so small, and made even smaller by how many of us aren’t out I wonder whether it would make a huge impact or not, at least in the areas where we don’t glut, (i.e. Hair Salons and Steel Mills). Also, Im not really privy to know, but in all of my work experience I’ve been fairly out and it has never been taken for granted, but I’ve only worked for WPGU which is already SO gay, and the LGBT Center…so…I dunno.

I guess it could make a really big statement in certain areas but I don’t think there are enough of us committed to the cause so deeply as to make an effective statements where it’s needed the most.

I’m still not sure though…I’m responding slightly faster than I felt like because I’m bored but it’s also not given me enough time to formulate my thoughts properly. Perhaps some further comments will spark something in me and I’ll give a more concise breakdown of my thoughts.

Rogue (Rogue) says:
(Posted November 17th, 2008 at 5:49 pm)

i think calling in gay would be kind of silly. i am sure it would be noticed, but not by many. there are really no companies fully run by the gay community that many people rely on. day without a mexican…sure…there would be less cooks in the restaurant kitchens, less landscaping/mowing of lawns, etc and people would start to worry….gays though….luckily most of us strive for something better in life and therefore do not find ourselves in positions where we walk around with a leaf blower. i think the only thing that would start to fall apart is the retail company. (ps….all of that was not me being racist or trying to get a few laughs…as i write this i am totally serious)

i also think that the people who would REALLY help this day be noticed (day without a gay) are the big wigs….the people in charge of major corporations and businesses, but in all honesty…do you think they are even out to their staff….or even their friends and family? and do you think THIS is the way they would like to come out of the closet. they stand to lose a lot if they do…which yeah….sucks balls….and definitely NOT in a good way =(

Kevin McLoughlin (Kevin McLoughlin) says:
(Posted November 17th, 2008 at 6:28 pm)

One day of striking isn’t enough to actually make a difference. The cool thing about this is that it encourages volunteer work at queer/human rights organizations, but strikes are really only effective if they rob an organization of its labor for a sustained period of time. Perhaps a more effective method would be targeting the groups that pushed Prop H8 through -http://antigayblacklist.com/, http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/ Sadly, a lot of these are local businesses or individuals, as opposed to corporations, which makes it a lot more difficult to target them.

As the biggest proponents of Prop H8 were religious organizations, I advocate a concentrated counter effort. We should protest outside churches and let them know we’ve had enough of their bullshit. Stoning congregations as they exit on Sunday mornings would be particularly effective, especially if you see married couples. Aim for the wedding band! I also hear Mormon children are quite tasty. I mean, if they’re going to destroy our families, why not pay them back in kind?

In all seriousness, I think the best way to protest this is to target the groups who supported Prop H8, but keeping in mind that you can’t throw a blanket term over people. There are religious groups who opposed Prop H8, and they’d make really potent allies. Someone whose religious views influenced their vote would be far more likely to listen to someone speaking from their perspective. If we can mobilize a religion-positive campaign (ATTN gay xtians!), we’d not only make our case that much stronger, but also avoid the demonizing of us that is currently going on by Mormons who are surprised people are pissed at them for financially supporting their oppression…

Tom (Tom) says:
(Posted November 17th, 2008 at 7:33 pm)

I think if every single gay person did it, it would be very effective. However, I doubt more than 20% ever would, so I think it will be marginal and probably would go unnoticed by most.

That said, we must do something in the coming weeks…it needs to be more or less sustained for a long time, perhaps through the winter, hopefully prodding the Obama administration or Democratic congress to finally do something about it. Imagine if Prop 8 was the watershed moment…our Stonewall. Just like Stonewall, it’s kind of insignificant as a singular event, but it represents something so much bigger. And it could be remembered as the straw that broke the camel’s back, or whatever the expression is. Regardless, I’m kind of excited to see how this newest movement will manifest itself.

Nate (Nate) says:
(Posted November 17th, 2008 at 8:23 pm)

I would not participate in this. Why would I refrain from school or work? What injustice has the University done me? I could at least understand if people were, say, refusing to pay a portion of their state or federal taxes to compensate for a certain degree of discrimination. I could understand if people were to boycott friends’ or relatives’ weddings or to ask friends and relatives to refrain from marriage until the system becomes more just. I definitely understand holding protests such as the one we did last Saturday. Indeed, maybe we should have one again after Thanksgiving, and again, and again–until people take notice and act. But this just seems silly.

kris (kris) says:
(Posted November 17th, 2008 at 9:05 pm)

Well.. I have no work or school that day.. so therefore I can participate without participating! woo! ha

Antonio (Antonio) says:
(Posted November 17th, 2008 at 9:34 pm)

First off…I stumbled across this article off the news feed on Facebook. My immediate reaction, Oh jeez “A day without a Mexican?” The outcome with a Mexican ‘call-in’ is much greater than a gay call-in for the obvious reason; numbers. Personally, I don’t feel this type of protest would do much good in any business. You got to take into consideration that not all, not even close to all gays will take part in this. Also, with the economy in the shit-hole it is, a number of gays don’t want to risk their jobs to call in for ‘being gay.’ In all honesty, your participation and attendance at work has little to no reason to be used as a catalyst for wanting to get married lol. The Mexican ‘call-in’ movement had much better grounds. The people were all huffy puffy that they weren’t finding jobs so they blame (first reaction any huffy puffy American gives) Mexicans. LOL The Mexicans being blamed of course are the minimum wage earners…reference to Rogue’s comment;

“…day without a mexican…sure…there would be less cooks in the restaurant kitchens, less landscaping/mowing of lawns, etc…”

If people would looked closer they would see that Mexicans start at the bottom and work they’re way up. You think they just are handed jobs? THEY ARE! Therefore, so can any American citizen, but they don’t want that job…huffy puffy, hence the phrase; “They’re doing the jobs American’s don’t want to do.” Now you see, Mexicans did have grounds to pull a movement like a ‘call-in’ but gays, come on, you want to get married right? Not prove to anti-gays that work can’t continue without you…Mexicans will fill yall’s positions real quick =).

Oh, and as for the retail company remark, LOL! Maybe its just a college thing but most gays I know are not near any retail store position. But, great labeling…I guess. Just being serious.

Now, Liam you also stated that IF gays were to call-in ‘gay’ that the time would then be used to help with a pro-gay organization. I think that is a bit blahhhh lol. As if the gay community can’t do their job and do added volunteer work on off time. Yes, gays are all busy throughout the day but it would look better on the community’s integrity if the volunteer work was added onto your normal day work load. That’s as much as I need to say on that.

In honesty with this entire issue, I think we should start looking at FULL civil union or FULL civil partnership rather than the term ‘marriage.’ Lets have all the benefits; inheritance tax, parental responsibility, life insurance, pensions, so on and so forth. Lets have all the benefits opposite-sex couples have when married. If we have that, all we’re missing is the ceremony. If an act is passed, similar to the Civil Partnership Act of 2004 or the UK, we will all be happy lol. The ‘church’ people can have the right to not conduct a gay couple’s marriage within their confines. But we all know that there are indeed churches and priests out there that are more than willing to wed a gay couple. As for the others, we also know how greedy the church is so I’m sure money can get some gay knots tied lol.

Hey Liam! I miss you too buddy! lol

Mike Consalvo (Mike Consalvo) says:
(Posted November 17th, 2008 at 10:16 pm)

Great job Liam, you can make a difference.
I don’t know about the calling in gay thing. A couple of years ago, Hispanics were trying to organize a boycott of work on one day to protest the crackdown on immigration and it seemed to have little or no effect.

As for the Mormons, for them to say it is wrong to protest their house of worship is hypocritical. They are the ones who protested us and donated $25 million to fight our rights. If they didn’t want people protesting then maybe they shouldn’t have fought so hard to get this damn thing passed.

I’d like to think all of this protesting will work, but I’m scared that it won’t. I really believe that the best way to fight this and get equal rights is to not only fight it in court but also write our congress people to support gay rights and to not support those who don’t support gay rights. We need to fight these people the same way they fight us, with money and votes. Many Republicans get elected by rallying their Evangelical Christian base to come out and vote against gay marriage and gay rights. Well, we have to make our voices heard by flooding all politicians with letters, emails and phone calls telling them that they will not get our support unless they take a stand and support us. It we get enough people to support us in not supporting those who are against gays, then we will start to see a change. You will be amazed at how quickly politicians change their views when their own seat of power is threatened.

Nevertheless, Liam, you are a great person to have on our side.

good sean (good sean) says:
(Posted November 18th, 2008 at 10:06 am)

There aren’t enough out gay people for it im afraid. We should be actively boycotting companies that don’t have nondiscrimination policies for their gay employees on the books, or don’t give the same benefits to gay partners as spouses. Something more along those lines. This is especially important for people in states where being fired for sexuality is still legal, which is like 30/50 of them isn’t it?

William Billy Ray B. (William Billy Ray B.) says:
(Posted November 18th, 2008 at 10:59 am)

After giving it a lot of thought, I’m skeptical at best. One day boycotts aren’t quite effective. There have been several in the past few years, one to bring attention to immigration policy and many to bring down the price of gas. They have had little or no effect.

I’m pretty sure you could be fired for this, even in states that do have employment non-discrimination laws protecting LGBT persons. You can’t be fired for being LGBT, for expressing it in the workplace, for having a partner, etc… but you sure could be fired for not showing up to work without giving advance notice for something that isn’t an emergency. You could lie and call in sick and hope you don’t get discovered, but that defeats the purpose of highlighting LGBT issues.

The workplace boycott seems misdirected… The Montgomery, Alabama Bus Boycott made sense… they make us give up our seats on the bus, therefore we won’t ride the bus. The immigration boycotts (although I don’t agree with their aims) made sense… in order to liberalize immigration and employment policies, let’s show how we impact employers. But the proposed “Day Without A Gay” boycott…. voters and state legislators won’t let us marry, so I’ll give my boss a headache? The means we are talking about do not logically lead to the ends we seek.

On a personal note, I know that my supervisor has gone out of his way and far beyond the requirements of the law to make sure that LGBT persons are not just tolerated and treated equitably, but also accepted in our workplace. I don’t think he would appreciate me leaving him in the lurch one day for a law which he does not control. Furthermore, I would speculate that most people who would feel comfortable “outing” themselves by participating in this boycott already work in places that are accommodating.

I am happy and grateful to see the energy that LGBT persons nationwide seem to have right now, but this boycott seems to be a hasty attempt to channel that energy into something. I don’t think it is something useful.