So today is, supposedly, a
Day without a Gay, when all good homos call into work gay and don't spend any money or shop to create a visible and economic impact in protest of gay inequality under the law.

This is a great idea in theory. Wouldn't it be something if stores closed, Times Square went dark, or some child was left without life-saving surgery because Dr. Homo called in queer.
Yeah, in practice, the Day without a Gay idea is very
Third Grade Gay.
Here's my take. I make this reasoning under the assumption that the goals of this protest are to increase visibility by creating an economic impact (by not working and not shopping) and making it felt in the business sector how essential the gay workforce is.
Gay people who could call in queer to work fall into one of two categories:
(1) People who are out at work and work for a gay-friendly employer.
(2) People who are not out at work, and are not out at work for a reason. It is still legal to fire someone, or harass them, or make their lives a living hell at work, just for being gay.
So, 'mo's in group (1) have no incentive to call in gay and not show up at work because it harms those who are supporting them. Calling in gay would be irresponsible as a valued employee, and put the burden on those who already support being openly gay in the workplace.
I have an important meeting today for which I am essential. These senior professionals actively support me as a person, and as an openly gay man. Almost all of them wrote checks
on the spot when I mentioned the drag-a-thon fundraiser.
My bailing on them today would not only not benefit me nor my community, it would harm those who are supportive, and harm my professional reputation-- a self-inflicted wound because I'm gay, and harming the reputation of gay professionals.
So gays in group (1) shouldn't participate because it harms those who are helping.
Gays in group (2) should not participate because it would do minimal harm and have little to no impact on the employer, and puts the closeted employee at significant risk. In order for gay visibility to be achieved, the closeted worker would have to say "I'm not coming in to work today as an act of protest against unfair treatment of gays and lesbians." If they are not out at work, coming out and ditching a day is not likely to curry them any favor. Gays getting fired in a crappy economy helps neither the individual or the movement.
Generally, people who feel they cannot be out at work feel that way for a reason.
So there ends my brief rant. I am not alone. Many other bloggers think this is a dumb idea too.
My brother called me this morning asking if I was not going into work. (I couldn't take his call at the time because I was feeling a little gay.)
Mac has always been a loud voice for gay rights (well, he's always been a loud voice, he just lends it to the cause whenever he can), and he also thinks this is a dumb idea. And has many suggestions as how to help the cause that aren't this.
The topic was
covered mentioned in today's
Nashille Post (the business newspaper). Mac sent it to me and directed me to the comments. Four of them are his under various names. I weighed in (ha) as Richard Simmons, in homage to Mac's Saturday night (story to come).
PLEASE: let's get some smarmy good bitchy comments going.
Click over and add a comment, but try to be funny. I want to try to build a good thread here.