Day Without a GayFollow

Bed, Bath, & Beyonds everywhere are bracing for the economic slump.

Stocks in sequin and flannel companies have taken a tumble.

No, and this is just another example of how badly disorganized the "No on 8" caucus is. You can't have an effective boycott on a day's notice.

This is the first I've heard of it and I'm involved in a number of local and national GLBT rights organizations. :/

I guess if anyone calls in sick to work tomorrow, I know who to watch out for.

I'm boycotting Mondays, in protest at the fact that they suck so much.

Revolutionaries of the world, unite!

Now I know where the stereotype of the lazy gay Mexican comes from.

I think this is a fabulous idea.

Being realistic, not just stereotypical, if enough ****** actually followed through with this, the night might be a total wash-out for many many theatres, opera and dance performances. It could cancel evening's performances nationwide and require ticket refunds. That could certainly get some airtime and notice, without doing anything so nasty and horrific as blowing people up.

I thought the air-port sit-in to paralyze international travel was a stroke of genius by the Thais recently. It certainly raised mass awareness overseas that their government had been ruled invalid by the supreme court, and new elections were legally supposed to be held, and yet the government was refusing to step down.

Peaceful civil disobedience is an absolute foundation stone of democracy.

Um... But wont the gay people be the only one's who notice?

Huh?

You mean they aren't? The homosexual community isn't part of society?

In Britain the right to own or trade slaves was taken away by a parliamentary vote, after a long civil campaign. I'm pretty sure they abolished slavery before America did.

Female sufferage. At various times starting from the late 1800s and over various issues. Right to vote. Right to refuse sex to your husband. Right to not be physically harmed by husband. Right to work. Right not to automatically be sacked upon marriage. Right to equal pay.

Previous to that, right to vote by all men, not just land owners. Pretty sure that one was done without violence.

Aboriginal sufferage in Australia. Right to be paid for work at all, that one was achieved by almost all Aborigines walking hundreds of miles off remote properties into the main cities, and refusing to go back to work until they were paid a wage. Right to enter white men's bars and resteraunts. 1964 right to vote. 1973 Right to keep any half-cast children instead of having the state automatically take them away and raise them in orphanages.

In 1836 the liberation of most of the population of Britain from the still existing Feudal laws. All British people were now free to travel away from the place that they lived in, without seeking the permission of their lord. All British people now did not need their lord's permission to marry who they wanted to marry.

There was a recent huge case in Eastern Europe where a series of huge public demonstrations and sit-ins got the ruling Communist government simply to resign, and hold democratic elections. Shame on me for not remembering which country.

I'm not exactly sure but I'm pretty sure that the hand over of India to it's own people from the British colonial owners proceeded without a major armed insurrection. The unhappy British masters certainly got trigger happy a few times in the face of mass disobedience and extreme protests, but from what I remember that case was an extended case of restraint from violence from the protesters towards the people they were protesting against. I might have that wrong, but I think that usually when it got violent, it was self-violence, not terrorism in taking out any other people. Lots of Indians on hunger strikes and starving themself to death in public places, that sort of thing.

Lastly, why do you think totalitarian governments of any stripe are so eager to outlaw gatherings in public of four or more unrelated people together? It's basically a marker law for totalitarian regimes. Any restrictions on the right to strike or to publicly demonstrate are a slippage away from democracy towards totalitarianism.

I do think you can ban demonstrations at funerals (or weddings and baptisms for that matter) without being undemocratic or infringing free speech. There are extreme cases where time and place ought to be taken into consideration, weddings and funerals being my pick, and some few things ought to be allowed to be sacred, even in a completely secular or atheistic society.

Edited, Dec 9th 2008 10:33pm by Aripyanfar

On a different note, I was listening to Fox Sports Radio Network on my way home last night and the announcer after reading off the NBA's final scores, mentioned that, "that Gay guy scored X amount of points in Portland's win over Team blahblahblah."

I laffed out loud. Rudy Gay is now officially "that Gay guy." Too funny for words.

Totem