Day Without A Gay: Complete Bust
Here’s what this silly sophomoric stunt resulted in:
- Late-night joke fodder for Leno, Conan & Kimmel
- Absolutely no impact whatsoever
- Proof that gays are not oppressed and that we have it pretty well off in the USA vs. nearly every other nation around the world.
Day Without A Gay participation spotty – My Way News
In San Francisco’s gay Castro district, several residents and merchants said they endorsed the cause but did not think a work stoppage or spending boycott was practical, given the poor economy and how quickly the strike was organized.
“My employers have always been there in every possible way. I didn’t feel comfortable discomfiting them when they have gone out of their way to be there for me,” said Paul Ellis, 51, a manager at Cliff’s Variety hardware store.
Folks, blacks in America in the 1950s and 1960s couldn’t eat in the same places as whites, they could not go to the same schools as whites, they couldn’t live in the same neighborhoods as whites, they were routinely sought out by police and beaten, they were routinely murdered and no one cared or investigated, they were routinely framed for rape and murder of whites.
It is a complete insult and offensive to me to compare “gay rights” in 2008 to the fight for African-American civil rights in the 1960s.
Now — can someone please justify how gays are oppressed in America given how far we have come and how one cannot possibly compare the “plight” of gays in 2008 to what America’s blacks went through during much of this continent’s modern civilization.
The Gays(tm) need to get off the high horse pretty quick. Otherwise the obvious gains that the Gay Left wants to ignore are going to be reversed.
PS — And by the way, those of us who DID go to work got punished. My boss made me work overtime to make up for all of the gays who stayed home in bed.  (No, not really. My boss is awesome.)
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
48 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hey, what timing. This is a better place for my comment from the other thread. Moving it over:
—————————————-
The gay guy in the cube across from me wrote in yesterday with, “Not feeling well so working from home today.†Coincidence? Hard to say. I don’t think it counts as ‘Day Without a Gay’ if you tell the company you’re going to be doing your normal work. It’s normal for people to WFH every couple weeks at this company, so no one missed him or gave it a second thought.
He’s pretty closet-y, anyway. I am the “out and (occasionally) proud†one, in our group. Ironic, isn’t it? I, the ex-Democrat conservative-leaning Independent have no trouble with people knowing I’m gay at work – and I will occasionally even clue them in. While he, the loudmouth flaming liberal who practically shouts his politics up and down the hallways, is closeted. One time I was his passenger, and I casually mentioned something (my weekend perhaps) that revealed my gaiety. He became so nervous that he couldn’t park his car, and damaged it (a scrape) while trying.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2008 @ 1:25 pm - December 11, 2008
Gee, ILC, he almost sounds a bit… “self-loathing.”
Comment by V the K — December 11, 2008 @ 1:31 pm - December 11, 2008
I wonder.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2008 @ 1:42 pm - December 11, 2008
One of the Sonic-Mate’s straight coworkers stayed home yesterday – he was really sick. But I think it would be fun to harass him as being gay anyway.
Comment by sonicfrog — December 11, 2008 @ 3:11 pm - December 11, 2008
That is so mean, sonic. But funny…it made me laugh.
“Day without a Gay” – whatever. As socially liberal as I am, I friggin’ worked yesterday because frankly I’m glad to have a job with an employer who values my contributions and who treats me well, including the domestic partner benefits I get that make it possible for my other half to be self-employed and not worry about his healthcare. And I work in a very “conservative” environment (quotes to indicate the culture, not the politics). Now if only I didn’t get taxed on them….
Comment by Mike — December 11, 2008 @ 3:20 pm - December 11, 2008
But what are the gay bartenders and gay prostitutes going to do? We are in a recession after all. No worries. They never said anything about a “Night Without A Gayâ€, or anything about nuclear wars, so tonight….
PS. If you’re drinking milk, I suggest you put it down first.
Comment by sonicfrog — December 11, 2008 @ 3:33 pm - December 11, 2008
PS. That Vid is dedicated to V the K, wherever he may be.
Comment by sonicfrog — December 11, 2008 @ 3:35 pm - December 11, 2008
The one guy at my work who called in sick yesterday probably isn’t gay, but now everyone thinks he is.
Comment by Ringo the Gringo — December 11, 2008 @ 4:01 pm - December 11, 2008
An update on my closeted liberal co-worker. He is out again today and just said he has a fevor. Poor guy, I hope he gets better. And I guess that confirms that that his absence yesterday was unrelated to the DWOAG.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2008 @ 4:31 pm - December 11, 2008
(sorry, “fever”, aargh)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 11, 2008 @ 4:32 pm - December 11, 2008
Crazy that it was such a whiff. Some felt it would draw 200,000 people. Maybe not a significant number, but a number. Instead, it utterly fizzled.
http://newsy.com/videos/will_silent_protest_be_heard/
Comment by ThunderRoad — December 11, 2008 @ 5:00 pm - December 11, 2008
I don’t think the midwest participated
Only a few people where I work had even heard about DWOAG. Silent supporters perhaps.
Wasn’t the point to call in “gay” and not sick?
Comment by J — December 11, 2008 @ 5:17 pm - December 11, 2008
Don’t forget a major difference between our struggle and that of AA’s in the ’60s: they were allowed to get married to each other if they chose. I’m not saying our “struggle” is equal to theirs, but that’s a factor that needs to be considered, Bruce (one that was omitted from your post).
http://www.newsy.com/videos/will_silent_protest_be_heard/
Comment by Cameron_Modesto — December 11, 2008 @ 5:32 pm - December 11, 2008
Wonder if we could persuade Congress to enact a “Day Without A Liberal” on the calendar. Then we could really have some fun at the office.
How about making 2009 the “Year Without A (Radical) Queer?”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — December 11, 2008 @ 6:34 pm - December 11, 2008
“It is a complete insult and offensive to me to compare “gay rights†in 2008 to the fight for African-American civil rights in the 1960s.”
The circumstances are totally different, any fool knows that. But the concept of bigotry based on complete ignorance with an occasional Bible reference thrown in is exactly the same. And those who apologize for the “uppity” ones are exactly the same. Funny, they get to reap the same benefits though.
“Now — can someone please justify how gays are oppressed in America given how far we have come”
We didn’t get here by sitting quietly, hoping to blend in and not make waves and maybe some day oh pretty please they will like us. It took decades of work and protest by both liberals and conservatives to get to the point where smarmy pseudo-conservatives can sit ridiculing others and feeling superior. Maybe you need to take a look at real history not that “Reagan created the earth in 7 days” puke that influences your every word.
The call out gay day was a joke, and it got people talking, not all of it good of course but perhaps some might have even been able to comprehend that the whole anti-gay mentality is a joke. Clearly that point was missed here.
Comment by a different Dave — December 11, 2008 @ 6:58 pm - December 11, 2008
“We didn’t get here by sitting quietly, hoping to blend in and not make waves and maybe some day oh pretty please they will like us.”
Speaking as a straight guy who used to make “fag” jokes with the best of them, blending in is exactly what changed things. It’s the “normalizing” that has made it acceptable.
The turning point for how I view gays coincided with three things: my favorite college professor let it drop in casual conversation on an educational tour through Europe that he was gay, my cousin came out, and Robert Downey Jr. made “Home for the Holidays”. It was precisely because I saw examples of people who were gay and not stereotypes.
i.e. They were normal people. Or to paraphrase T.R. Knight, being gay wasn’t the most interesting thing about them.
And Reagan didn’t create the world in seven days. He merely served as a consultant.
Comment by Ronnie Gipper — December 11, 2008 @ 7:29 pm - December 11, 2008
The circumstances are totally different, any fool knows that.
That explains quite nicely why you don’t.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 11, 2008 @ 7:33 pm - December 11, 2008
But you see, Ronnie Gipper, being gay is the only thing that adDave and his fellow gay leftists have going for them. Competence, intellectual and emotional maturity, and the ability to tolerate the existence of other opinions are not exactly within their capabilities, nor has the gay community demanded that they develop them. Instead, it’s encouraged them to become whiny, helpless victims, who insist that anything bad that happens to them has nothing to do with their own behavior and is just because (they believe) all religious people hate gays and want to march them off to concentration camps.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 11, 2008 @ 7:35 pm - December 11, 2008
“We” lol
Comment by American Elephant — December 11, 2008 @ 7:48 pm - December 11, 2008
The sight of adD grasping desperately at straws to try and make this event somehow less pathetic and risible than it actually way amuses me.
Comment by V the K — December 11, 2008 @ 8:26 pm - December 11, 2008
Problems with the concept.
1, Gays are on “gay time” anyway, and you never know when they are going to show up.
2. Do we want people discovering they did not miss us?
3. The slogan “A day without a gay is like a day without a bitchy ultraliberal suparnanny clean freak overdramatizing your workplace, gasping at the sight of hunks, or organizing a ball team and dominating conversation at the steno pool with u-haul tips” is not that catchy.
4. Danger in being asked what you did on your gay day off, and not having something fabulous to tell them on such short notice.
5. Real possibility the straight co-worker may want to take the next gay day off with you on sopme fabulous adventure, and blemish the brand.
6. Bi-sexuals only got half a day off, and could not come together on morning or afternoon, diluting the effect.
I recommend we simply send all non-gay people home for the next gay day, and show the world the way we do everyone’s homework.
Comment by ted — December 11, 2008 @ 11:20 pm - December 11, 2008
Ironically, that crack itself may be ignorant. It was the pro-Bible people in the 19th century U.S. who were the abolitionists, motivated by deep religious conviction. The atheists weren’t abolitionists.
Jefferson, while no atheist, was not exactly an evangelical either… and he was a slaveholder, who couldn’t even bring himself to free his slaves in his will.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2008 @ 12:48 am - December 12, 2008
P.S. And not to digress, but Jefferson was also the father of what is now the Democratic Party. The Dems are, and always have been, the party of people who are stuck on racial categories. They’ve just switched from White Supremacy to White Inferiority. It’s still just as dumb. Most of the other Americans couldn’t give a crap about race, in any direction – and that’s good.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2008 @ 12:53 am - December 12, 2008
What? Nothing from Jon Leibowitz?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 12, 2008 @ 1:39 am - December 12, 2008
It was a stupid idea, the economy is horrible right now where skipping work is not a luxury many people have right now.
Comment by Matt from California — December 12, 2008 @ 3:58 am - December 12, 2008
I forgot about the day off thing, so I just looked down the staff list to see if the folks I know are gay were at their duty stations and we had 100% attendance. I wonder if I should go by and thank them? Naw, I have no reason to insult fine people who tend to business. The mission of our hospital does not have room for political posturing. I would have been shocked if any of our good people had gone stupid for a day.
Comment by heliotrope — December 12, 2008 @ 10:39 am - December 12, 2008
> Ironically, that crack itself may be ignorant. It was the pro-Bible people in the 19th century U.S. who were the abolitionists, motivated by deep religious conviction. The atheists weren’t abolitionists. <
actually, the “pro-Bible” people were pretty much pro-slavery. Very few denominations opposed the institution. Those that did — such as the Quakers and Unitarians — were considered radical and theological suspect then and now. Arguably, those two denominations were able to oppose slavery so strongly precisely because they were not “pro-bible”, that is because both groups tend to de-emphasize biblical authority in favour of personal revelation and/or reason. It is hard for us to get our heads around it now, but at the time, it was just a obvious to most christians that that slavery is ordained by god and endorsed by the bible as it is that homosexuality is a sin. The of the main pro-slavery arguments was that you cannot reject slavery without rejecting the moral authority of the bible. Rather like the argument against homosexuality today.
Comment by grendel — December 12, 2008 @ 10:48 am - December 12, 2008
NDT, wrong again, but amusing. Being gay has little to do with my daily existence. At work I’ve “come out” to some when I felt it was necessary but I don’t have rainbow flags in around my desk or pictures of my partner (since I don’t have one). More people know about my Christian experience than do my sexual orientation. It’s not a matter of hiding, it’s a need to know issue. I speak freely on LGBT issues if they arise and confront stupidity when I see it. So NDT as with every other assumption you have ever made about me you are dead wrong.
Don’t worry AE, I don’t include you in the word “we”. You are one who would have advocated doing nothing even back in the days when the sodomy laws were on the books and gays were considered by most to be deviant and perverse and being gay had to be kept secret.
“It was the pro-Bible people in the 19th century U.S. who were the abolitionists, motivated by deep religious conviction”
You are correct, deep religious conviction can be a powerful force for justice. I was referring to those then and now who use the Bible as a weapon to justify their personal biases and their actions against those who don’t fit their narrow definition of acceptable.
#16 I totally agree that it is by knowing us as individuals that people attitudes towards us change. Events like FSF and giant parades with mostly naked men or topless women portray a very negative image. Marches can be empowering for individuals who participate but as a way of advancing the communities as a whole it’s useless. There were times in the past where they were very important in my opinion but they were purely political not “celebrations” There’s a difference between blending and hiding, supporting those who are against us and scoffing at any voice that speaks against it.
Comment by a different Dave — December 12, 2008 @ 11:33 am - December 12, 2008
and another comment sinks to the bottom of the spam filter.
Comment by a different Dave — December 12, 2008 @ 11:33 am - December 12, 2008
Groan. This “Day Without A Gay” business was a stupid stunt. The people that cooked this up have shown America that certain activists have the mentality of 12 year olds. Darn tootin’ I went to work last night (I work 2nd shift). I’m just wondering what they’ll think of next.
Comment by Jimbo — December 12, 2008 @ 12:04 pm - December 12, 2008
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong on the facts. The abolitionists were deeply religious, and *not* primarily Quakers or Unitarians or regarded as suspect. Abolitionism was the intellectual gold standard in the northern states, even at the time of the American Revolution. Alexander Hamilton, for example, was a prominent early abolitionist, and an Episcopalian. Congregationalists (that means Puritans) and Presbyterians were also early abolitionists. George Washington, another Episcopalian, held slaves but freed them all on his wife’s death.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2008 @ 2:10 pm - December 12, 2008
grendel, you’re wrong – My comment is waiting in the spamfilter.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2008 @ 2:10 pm - December 12, 2008
Actually, A Differently-Abled Dave, I was laughing at you including yourself in the word “we”. As if!
Yes, because thats exactly analogous to demanding society pretend gays can reproduce. Youre effing brilliant!
Comment by American Elephant — December 13, 2008 @ 12:22 am - December 13, 2008
Spam spam eggs and spam.
Comment by American Elephant — December 13, 2008 @ 12:22 am - December 13, 2008
NDT, wrong again, but amusing.
I thought you were leavig. Fine example of honesty you are.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 13, 2008 @ 2:16 am - December 13, 2008
“actually, the “pro-Bible†people were pretty much pro-slavery. Very few denominations opposed the institution.”
Your ignorance is showing. Both the baptists and the methodists, two of the largest denominations at the time in the US, split over slavery.
Comment by rightwingprof — December 13, 2008 @ 7:55 am - December 13, 2008
Whew! The old slavery stuff had to come into this. OK, how about this:
Kindly review the Dred Scott decision. It made Dred Scott property as in owning a hog and slaughtering a hog or selling a hog or freeing a hog or traveling with a hog. But stick with slaughtering a hog.
The pro choice people say the fetus is the woman’s property and she has the private right to slaughter the fetus or sell the fetus or give the fetus away or travel with the fetus. Ergo, the Dred Scott decision is the pro-choice woman’s best friend.
Now, along comes a Bible thumper who says that the fetus is not the property of the woman to do with as she pleases. It is a separate life and in all cases a human life. The woman is obligated to take care of the nourishment and development of this separate life both in the womb and out. Furthermore, she is not permitted to leave it in a garbage can at a rest stop or kill it when it is three and inconvenient to a night at the bar.
I presented the little riff on Dred Scott as an example of how you might construct a parallel between the event of slavery and another issue. I anxiously await the logical argument concerning gays, slavery and Bible thumpers.
Somehow, we are supposed to find a parallel between gays and slavery and Bible thumpers. Is “bondage” part of the answer? Do gays want to own Bible thumpers? Do Bible thumpers want gays to be slaves? Where is the connection?
Comment by heliotrope — December 13, 2008 @ 11:00 am - December 13, 2008
AdDave, as heliotrope adeptly points out elsewhere, you have rather convincingly demonstrated that you, like the vast majority of liberal gays, is an antireligious bigot.
Again, it’s like Folsom; you whine and spin about how bad it supposedly is, but for some reason, you can’t find it in yourself to condemn it, repudiate it, or attack the gays who practice it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 13, 2008 @ 12:36 pm - December 13, 2008
[...] Day Without A Gay: Complete Bust [...]
Pingback by Thought Cloud For December 13, 2008 — December 13, 2008 @ 1:01 pm - December 13, 2008
How about throwing in the fact that it was a Northern judge who kept him a slave and a Southern judge who freed him? That is, if you want to throw a wrench in the whole “Southerners are racist, sexist, bigot homophobes” spin machine.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 14, 2008 @ 3:08 am - December 14, 2008
#36 heliotrope and #39 TGC, good points.
Meanwhile, my #31 has finally appeared, which answers grendel’s factually incorrect claims.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 15, 2008 @ 8:32 pm - December 15, 2008
#35 – haha, and RWP includes Baptist and Methodist abolitionism.
So let’s see… was there any major, Bible-oriented, Christian denomination that *wasn’t* significantly abolitionist at the time of the American Revolution, and predominately abolitionist by the time of the Civil War? Yes, most major denominations had die-hard pro-slavery minorities. But that is a very far cry from grendel’s claim that it was only “the Quakers and Unitarians… and they were considered radical and… suspect.” Nuh-uh.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 15, 2008 @ 8:44 pm - December 15, 2008
“Proof that gays are not oppressed and that we have it pretty well off in the USA vs. nearly every other nation around the world.”
Incorrect. Grossly incorrect.
While I see the DWAG as largely irrelevant & over the top given the legal protections California offers, the above claim is too misinformed (never assume malice when stupidity can be attributed) to ignore.
For the statement to be true, the USA’s protections must be surpassed by only a handful of nations. This simply is not true. The entire EU (27 nations), plus a further 27 nations (Excluding Russia & autonomous territories, including Kosovo, Australia and Taiwan) provide nationwide anti-discrimination laws. That alone makes them better off than the USA.
Of course, the USA is lightyears ahead of countries like Morroco, Jordan, Pakistan, Bahrain, Egypt & Kuwait. Funnily enough, all NATO allies, and receive no criticism from gaypatriot. Strange.
Comment by qqq — December 16, 2008 @ 3:56 am - December 16, 2008
ILC — “So let’s see… was there any major, Bible-oriented, Christian denomination that *wasn’t* significantly abolitionist at the time of the American Revolution, and predominately abolitionist by the time of the Civil War? —
Yes, most major denominations had die-hard pro-slavery(2008 Anti-Gay) minorities.
– But that is a very far cry from grendel’s claim that it was only “the Quakers and Unitarians… and they were considered radical and… suspect.†Nuh-uh.
There are many pro-gay / pro-SSM denominations in most religious sects across the country. There will always be the ‘die-hard’ folk speaking their minds.
THANKS
Comment by rusty — December 16, 2008 @ 4:12 pm - December 16, 2008
NUH-UH. . .Yes, most major denominations had die-hard pro-slavery(2008 Anti-Gay) minorities.
– But that is a very far cry from grendel’s claim that it was only “the Quakers and Unitarians… and they were considered radical and… suspect.†Nuh-uh.
There are many pro-gay / pro-SSM denominations in most religious sects across the country. There will always be the ‘die-hard’ folk speaking their minds.
THANKS
Comment by rusty — December 16, 2008 @ 4:16 pm - December 16, 2008
I informed my boss that I was “banking” my Gay day….
Comment by lifewzoe — December 16, 2008 @ 9:23 pm - December 16, 2008
[...] Read about it here. [...]
Pingback by Day Without A Gay: Complete Bust « Gay Reading — December 17, 2008 @ 5:24 am - December 17, 2008
Your points about the 60s are obviously on-target, but we seem to only get two attitudes when comparing today’s GLBT rights issues to the blacks’ struggles four decades ago. Attitude #1 is what you’re railing against: The belief that the GLBT struggle is a parallel to the 1960′s civil rights movement. Attitude #2 is your own, which is that attitude #1 is offensive. We need an attitude #3, though, which acknowledges that today’s GLBT population faces nothing like what the blacks of the 60s (and before) faced – BUT that the struggles of the 60s DO have lessons to offer today’s GLBT activists. We learned, for example (or should have), that while you can pass legislation to help ensure equality, no amount of legislation will ever ensure acceptance – and ultimately, quality comes only when everyone accepts one another, a process that takes time. Indeed, attempting to legislate acceptance – which is much of what the gay marriage fight is really about – often pushes back actual acceptance by decades – something today’s blacks, still faced with discrimination in spite of reams of laws to the contrary, can attest to. No, the struggles of today’s GLBT activities are puny compared to the 1960s civil rights movement. But we SHOULD be looking to that movement for guidance and education, learning what we can from the past rather than just pushing forward because we believe we’re justified in doing so.
Comment by Don Jones — December 18, 2008 @ 3:43 pm - December 18, 2008