On the one hand (the one clenched in a raised fist), I fully understand and share the outrage over Prop. 8. Expressing this outrage, letting Californians and the country know that a great wrong has been committed, is both necessary and understandable.

But on the other hand, expressions of outrage by themselves aren’t effective if they aren’t tied to an achievable goal. With the anti-war protests, for example, public opinion may have been mobilized to some extent, but with the people who could truly influence foreign policy comfortably dismissive of the anti-war movement’s concerns, the protests eventually came to lose steam and communicative value. Quite simply, there comes a point when people see protests and, even if they agree, say, “That’s nice, but” before moving on to whatever is preoccupying them. Similarly, the gay rights protests stand a chance of becoming background noise if they happen too often. Of course, the protests aren’t just about trying to change Prop. 8 supporters’ minds; they are certainly useful in keeping the base motivated for the challenges to come. But at the moment, voters can’t do anything about Prop. 8. It’s up to the courts to interpret and apply the law. Before Nov. 4, there was a chance to persuade people to change their votes. Now, there isn’t, and without a “call to action,” the protests’ expression will eventually amount to a “That’s nice, but.”

Similarly, the boycotting of businesses who donated money to support Prop. 8 might have been effective before Nov. 4, but is now little more than revenge. Boycotting is a major tactic that can be tremendously effective when used surgically. Yet, it comes with the risk of alienating the very people you are trying to win over. While Prop. 8 supporters in general will cry foul no matter when they get boycotted (despite having used similar tactics), the key to boycotting lies in choosing a moment when it will have maximum impact on people’s behaviour and support for the cause.

Great Idea, Bad Timing

And now comes this Day Without a Gay idea (http://daywithoutagay.org/). It’s pretty neat, actually; a dramatic reminder of how many of our friends, family and co-workers – people who form important parts of our lives – are gay. The idea is to “call in gay,” not show up for work, and do some volunteer work instead on Dec. 10, which is also International Human Rights Day. Like I said, it’s a neat idea. I even like this bit from the website: “We've reacted to anti-gay ballot initiatives in California, Arizona Florida and Arkansas with anger, with resolve, and with courage,” the website says. “NOW, it's time to show America and the world how we love.”

I like it. Well, except for the “reacted” part; the problem with all this buzzing activity is that it is a re-action and not a pro-action. And NOW is the time to show “America and the world how we love?” Now? There’s nothing wrong with the anger, the resolve, and the courage, but given the negative backlash from people we need to persuade, showing the love from the get-go would have been useful. (Which is what I tried to do, and am still trying to do, with the Always Choose Love Initiative, but I have much to learn about doing this sort of thing.)

Of course, this is the difference between Prop. 8 supporters and opponents; supporters take a long-term view. Based on a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, they seem to be expecting that the court will uphold Prop. 8 and that opponents will put a measure legalizing gay marriage on the 2010 ballot. It’s not hard to picture the big heads behind Prop. 8 noodling their plan of attack in regards to a future proposition, moving their pieces on the chessboard into position. It’s a little harder to picture the same of gay rights activists.

Day Without a Gay organizers are asking people to give up a day’s work – a big deal in itself – in an attempt to make a point. But like the protests, the lack of a tangible call to action, such as voting against a proposition, will effectively blunt the Day Without a Gay impact.

I understand the need to do something, anything, to undo this injustice. But the “anything” part needs to be tempered with patience. Before pushing the button, there are any number of publicity stunts that could keep the conversation going while boycotts and call-in-gay days are kept in reserve for the time when they will do the most good. For my part, I intend to spend the time waiting for the California Supreme Court’s decision by reminding people, as best I can through the Always Choose Love Initiative (http://cafepress.com/loveinitiative), that the issue is not about forcing religions to violate their beliefs or forcing people into relationships they don’t want. It’s about love – and people loving each other can only be good for the world.