No on Prop 8

It’s Election Day here in the U.S, a day which is now so important for the entire world. If you’ve read my blog before you know that I’ve voted for Barack Obama, I’ve been supporting him on this blog since last April when I first heard about him and heard his intense passion for this country. At this point I’m fairly certain he’s going to win, even my mother, a republican, just wrote me saying that she thinks he’s going to win, and Karl Rove, one of the most vile men on this planet, has stated he will win. So I’m feeling good about that.

My other concern is called Prop 8, a proposition currently being voted on here in California. Basically Prop 8 wants to make a constitutional amendment stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Currently in California same-sex couples can get married, and enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples. If people vote yes on Prop 8, then people like me, a gay man, won’t be able to get married to the person I love.

A lot of people who are voting yes on 8 say they want to “protect marriage”, which confuses me. Let’s take for example Bristol Palin, a 17 year old girl who got knocked up by her 18 year old boyfriend… they plan on getting married because she got pregnant, not because they’re in love. So, how is any of that sacred? How many countless heterosexual people get married in Vegas on a whim? Is that what people are trying to protect?

Then there’s the issue of religion. I’m not a religious person in any way, shape, or form. I wasn’t raised in any particular way, and I’m quite happy the way I am. That being said, I don’t want to get married in a church, I want religion to be no part of my ceremony. I want to be married on the beach, surrounded by all of the friends and family I love, telling all of them that I’m committing myself to one person for the rest of my life.

The last issue comes from the false statements from the Yes on 8 people stating that children will be taught about homosexuality as early as kindergarten. From the No on Prop 8 site:

“Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education. And no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it.”

That’s what I have to say about the issue. It’s about equal rights for everyone. And c’mon California, we’re one of the most progressive states out there. We can be a beacon for change for the rest of the U.S., paving the way for other states to follow suit. So please, VOTE NO ON PROP 8.

Bobby

32 Comments No on Prop 8

  1. Guav November 4, 2008 at 12:24 PM

    Trig Palin is the baby with Downs Syndrome. It’s Bristol Palin that is pregnant.

  2. BobbyBobby November 4, 2008 at 12:27 PM

    Is it bad that I find that mistake really embarrassing and hysterical at the same time? hahaha

    Thanks for that correction!

  3. KaTT November 4, 2008 at 1:31 PM

    Dear Bobby,
    were i a US citizen (which unfortunately i am not, not even close) i would definitely vote NO on prop 8. hope that everything turns out well, i am putting my fingers crossed that this november the 4th will be a victorious day we will always gladly recall. love,

    KaTT

    PS. great blog, congrats!

  4. youknowwhereyouarewith November 4, 2008 at 2:58 PM

    And, you know, I don’t even think it’s a matter of the ‘sacredness’–or not–of certain heterosexual marriages. The logical question is this: how in the world is same-sex marriage going to destroy heterosexual marriage? do these Yes on 8 people really have a vision of their own type of marriage that is that insecure?

  5. Hopeful November 4, 2008 at 3:36 PM

    I miss being able to vote by about three weeks, but I’m keeping my fingers crossed that Prop 8 doesn’t pass. Love is what makes a marriage sacred; nothing else.

    As a side-note, a vast number of California students were given a mock election, and 56% of us (111,000 students) voted no on Prop 8. If nothing else, there’s hope for the future.

  6. Paloma November 4, 2008 at 3:36 PM

    I had to go to several weddings this past summer and in almost ALL of them, the priest or pastor has mentioned how the sanctity of matrimony is being threatened by the prospect of gay marriage.

    Honestly, I think what’s ruining marriage is that irrelevant issues keep getting looked at rather than the REAL issues that lead in divorces such as the few you mentioned. I mean what a ridiculous thing to bring up during a wedding ceremony. What ever happened to saying something beautiful, meaningful, inspirational, and heartfelt at a wedding???

    Although I was raised Catholic, in no way do I consider myself very religious. All I have to say in regards to your posting is, “Amen.”

  7. kristen November 4, 2008 at 3:53 PM

    I dont think the LGBT community should have brought marriage into the equation in the first place. Why does the government have to take a stance on marriage? But it’s not a question of rights, since civil unions get all the rights that a marriage does.
    The thing that scares me is that when homosexual marriage is legal, churches will start to be accused of hate speech. I dont hate homosexual people. I just don’t think their lifestyle is okay. I wish they could prove that homosexuality is not a choice – that it’s in the DNA or something. Would make things so much simpler.
    I find it interesting that separation of church and state was originally created to protect the church from the state. Now it is used to protect the state from the church.
    I’m glad that right now in the US, we can both have our voices and opinions. I definitely voted yes on prop 8. I disagree with you but respect your right to have an opinion and voice it. (People on both sides mess up on this.)
    Still love your site. It’s delicious :D

  8. randplaty November 4, 2008 at 3:55 PM

    Rights are only given by society and can be taken away by society. This is the “social contract” described by John Locke.

    If you don’t live in society, you have the right to do whatever you want. But the closer to live with someone, the more rights you have to give up. For example, if you live with a roommate that doesn’t like loud music, you have to give up your right to listen to loud music late at night. When you’re married, you have to give up the right to fart in your own bed otherwise you’ll have problems with your spouse.

    In otherwords, the closer you are, the more rights you have to give up.

    If gay people want to live in relationship and community with conservative Christians, there are rights that you may need to give up. There is no such thing as demanding your rights. All rights are negotiated.

    For example, fathers have no right to abort their baby if the mother wants to keep the baby even though the father may have to pay child support. That’s not “equal” rights, but we still say that men and women are equal.

  9. BobbyBobby November 4, 2008 at 4:02 PM

    Kristen: This issue has nothing to do with any church or any religion. This is about rights. I should be able to have the very same rights as you or any other heterosexual couple out there.

    My getting married doesn’t change anything about any heterosexual couples marriages, all it’s about is love. No one is going to make churches start to marry gay couples, nor is it what we want.

    And yes, you saying (or anyone, or any church) that my lifestyle is okay is somewhat hateful. What if say that your enjoyment of bologna sandwiches is not okay with me? There’s no way for you to prove to me that you like bologna sanndwiches and you can’t help that fact. It’s a silly example, but I think you get me point.

    We need people to be more open minded. The fact that I want to be with another man for the rest of my life effects no one’s life but my own.

  10. Jennifer November 4, 2008 at 4:04 PM

    If I lived in Cali, I would definitely vote no on 8. As it is, I live in Oklahoma, a Republican hotbed, so I hear crap about “protecting marriage” all the time. That and how people are voting for Palin because she’s a lifelong member of the NRA. Sigh. I really need to move to a Blue state…

  11. BobbyBobby November 4, 2008 at 4:07 PM

    Randplaty: You’re completely off the mark. This isn’t about losing or gaining rights, this is about equality, which as a gay man I might lose.

    And why would I need to give up my right to equality to conservative Christians? Religion has no place in my politics.

  12. Catherine November 4, 2008 at 4:13 PM

    Maybe you don’t want to get married at a church, but there are other gay couples who do and have shown that they are willing to take churches to court if they do not get their way. A church or individual should not be forced by the courts into action against their religious beliefs any more than a gay person should be taken to court and forced to practice religion(the first is happening while the later is not). Second, in Massachusetts, where gay-marriage is legal, Robb and Robin Wirthlin have stated,”After Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, our son came home and told us the school taught him that boys can marry other boys. He’s in second grade. We tried to stop public schools from teaching children about gay marriage but the courts said we had no right to object or pull him out of class.” (their interview is at http://www.ProtectMarriage.com) If you still some how think things will be different here, in San Francisco, a group of first grade students were taken on a school-sponsored field trip to a gay wedding. The teaching of young children about gay marriage has already happened.

  13. BobbyBobby November 4, 2008 at 4:21 PM

    Catherine: And what’s wrong with teaching kids that someone of the same sex can love someone else of the same sex? No one has ever told a child what their sexual preference should be.

    Every single gay person I know was raised by a straight couple, so any idea that teaching kids that being gay is wrong is ludicrous.

    I also don’t believe that gay people should sue a church to get their way. That’s like suing a restaurant for not letting you eat there. You can’t take these specific stories that happened to a handful of people and judge the rest of us because of them.

  14. Taylor November 4, 2008 at 4:23 PM

    One day I think we (or our children, or their children) will look back on the gay marriage ban and think it to be as cruel and unjust as denying someone’s right to vote due to their sex or skin color.

  15. Garrett November 4, 2008 at 4:56 PM

    …Have people lost their fucking minds? I’ve had skirmishes with various religions in my life and I’ve been baptized Catholic, but the very second YOU start doing the judging for God, you’re WRONG. That’s his job. If homosexuals are really, truly doing something wrong (and of course we all know just being yourself is…), then he’ll take care of it, right? The all-powerful? Who the fuck are you? Shut your mouth, live your life, pray all you want, and keep getting those divorces you “sanctimonious” pricks.

  16. Thea November 5, 2008 at 4:00 AM

    I have read your words for many months, visited your blog with great joy and found an immense amount of inspiration through your visual design. I have an image of you in my mind as an extremely talented and hardworking man whom I admire. I’m a Norwegian and unfortunately I do not have the right to vote. Prop 8 saddens me greatly.

    USA has for the very first time looked past differences and picked a president judged by the content of his character and not the color of his skin. It is a paradox that this open-mindedness only goes so far.

    This might seem corny, but love is a rare thing. Love is bounderless. And when two people make a commitment to love each other that should be appreciated, not banned out of fear. Love is complex, but this is actually very simple. Everyone should have an equal right to love.

    I truly hope California says no on prop 8. I believe in your love.

  17. robvallejos November 5, 2008 at 5:06 AM

    Bobby, I think you and your blog are totally rad–I’m really glad you spoke out on this topic.

    Tylor and Thea — I couldn’t agree with you more! I wish all the yay-sayer’s on prop 8 would take the time to read your comments.

  18. le dude November 5, 2008 at 8:07 AM

    right now it is not looking good for prop 8. The first thing a new president should do is end this crazy ballot game in California, with measures requiring minimal vote or winner take all and so on. In this case, it is a vote against something which is even scarier. A vote should always go towards universal rights. I am suprised that to this day, some people are still having arguments on this. I am Canadian, the proud father of 4 kids and never married, I have lived with the person I love for 20 years now. I have seen so many ridiculous heterosexual marriages go haywire on day one that the concept irks me, but for the love of god, let both homosexual and heterosexual have the right to want or not be part of this institution. The reality is that marriage in the US is the only way to protect an association and its rights, reguardless of religion, sexual orientation. Wake up US ! This movement that has been created by right wingnuts and conservative media is a symptom of the Bush years of darkness, itÈs not enough to have voted for Obama, now is the time to rise up from the black hell of religious darkness that has brought your country down for the last 8 years.

    P.S. we are still happy that Bill Clinton got good quality blow jobs in his office !

  19. jen November 5, 2008 at 11:41 AM

    in regards to teaching kids about homosexuality – ignoring that something exists in an effort to “protect” your child does them no service. Teach them what you want, but teach them. That way you don’t have to worry about what they hear in school.

    “Every single gay person I know was raised by a straight couple” – indeed! People seem to think it’s like a disease – as long as you aren’t exposed, you’re immune. Riiiiigght….

    Anyways, if it all goes sour – come to Canada! It’s all gravy here!

  20. lorena November 5, 2008 at 11:45 AM

    none of the text on your banners is crisp.

  21. Bean November 5, 2008 at 2:24 PM

    It just passed by a slim margin and I am genuinely saddened. It infuriates me to think that in this day in age it is possible for someone to be denied a basic right like marriage based on their sexual preference. I am disgusted that ‘Yes for 8’ used children as a scare tactic when really, that was NOT the issue. Want to protect marriage? Outlaw divorce. I don’t believe that’s mentioned anywhere in your sacred Bible. Bobby, I am a huge fan of your site and my condolences are with you. I can’t imagine how it must feel to be forced to allow other people to decide my fate. This decision is already going to court and I can guarantee that I, along with many other progressive and compassionate people, will not let this go without a fight.

  22. Marcelo November 5, 2008 at 7:00 PM

    You guys still don’t know the difference between love and sex.

    Marriage is a religious thing since the beginning of mankind and it will always be. You are trying to interfere with people’s belief, and sure it will get complicated.

    If people want to share the rights for its belongings and heritage, is OK. But that’s not marriage. You just want to share your stuff legally.

    You still don’t know the focus on you are fighting for.

    Does open-mind means a hole open to throw everything inside?

    It’s totally different from having different ethnicity. Don’t try to mix up things.

    If you want to people to accept you as you are, you have to accept people’s beliefs as well.

  23. Michaela November 5, 2008 at 7:28 PM

    I think you raised some very important, perfectly logical points Bobby. And frankly, I see no strength in arguments to the contrary.

    We don’t even have legalised gay marriage here in Australia! I very much hope for all you Californians that proposition 8 is not passed, as if it were, it’d definitely be a step backwards.

  24. Siong November 6, 2008 at 1:28 PM

    This is one of the reasons why I am exceptionally proud of being a Canadian. Live and let live – your kids are not going to grow up gay simply because they know about it. It is also completely unrealistic to shelter your child from realities of life. They will learn about it one way or another. It also isn’t that difficult to broach the subject when asked. Tabula rasa; children do not naturally learn to hate/discriminate against another person simply due to sexuality or skin colour – that is taught by the parents/peers and influenced by the environment.

    Live and let live.

    It happens in nature. There is even an exhibition going on in Oslo about homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It is well-documented.

  25. Alicia November 6, 2008 at 9:06 PM

    I would like to apologize for the stupidity of Californians this year for passing Prop 8. I personally voted against and know many who feel the same as you do. I would like to say that I hope that we can do better in the future, and that I sincerely apologize that your rights are being compromised by the ignorance of the masses.

    So sorry.

  26. le dude November 7, 2008 at 4:23 PM

    I am suprised here that people do not talk about the issue behind the american ballot system, this is the problem here, not the actual subject of the prop !

    When only 40% of the voting population decides by less than a 5% margin on a proposition that required 75 million $ of lobby money, you cannot call any of this democracy. Especially when the proposition is presented ina negation format, a removal format and included complete dissinformation (such as religious marriage versus right to live equally as a couple and homosexuality lessons in school). That is one sad day for Americans.

    Now the shocker, it appears that an increase in the latino, asian and black community has flipped the numbers. Let’s face it, culturaly, homosexuality is less adopted in more religous communities. This is not about conservatism, if it were, proposition about abortion declaration would have gone through easy but it was defeated, oddly, there is a noted rate of abortion within certain less open communities… Truly, the ballot system is about plotician not wanting to lead, not wanting to decide for the good of all as opposed to a few.

    If my fuur depended on money and the decision of 40% of the voting population on a 5% margin, I’d get the fuck out of this individualist society… then again I am Canadian so…

    NB Proud dad of 4 kids who can’t believe that prop 8 won…

  27. Garrett November 7, 2008 at 5:51 PM

    Marcelo – marriage is a religious thing since the beginning of time?! Shit, forgot the marriage scene in “2001,” and I must have skimmed over the part where Adam and Eve exchanged vows.

    It’s a word, a word that in this state keeps homosexual couples from having the same rights as hetero ones. You’re telling me – all of you are for Prop 8 – can be fans of this blog, and this guy – talented, passionate, and driven as he is – and say, “Mmm, that’s nice, but I’m still not ok with you enjoying the same rights and happiness as me.” FUCK YOU. I want to fight you, in a not-even-joking kind of way. Any of you, all of you AT ONCE. I will Hulk out – come on down to LA and try me.

    And as an added bonus, a little newsflash for you selfish, close-minded pricks? Some of the MAJOR funding for Prop 8 came from a shithead named Howard Ahmanson Jr. This guy’s ultimate goal is the total intigration of biblical law into our lives, and his politics are derived from one Mr. RJ Rushdoony, religious nutjob extraordinaire (and thankfully, very dead). Rushdoony believed that homosexuals should be stoned to death. How do you feel about that? Your proposition is paid for by a guy who wants Bobby stoned – to death. FUCK YOU. Oh yeah – he’s also for stoning anyone who engages in oral sex, cause it’s not very bibl-y. So unless you lead a very boring life, that means you should be dead too.

    Use your mind, do some research, and wake up. Or fight me, I don’t care.

  28. Me November 8, 2008 at 9:50 PM

    If marriage is all about Christianity, why is it practiced in just about every culture around the world? If marriage was all about religion then atheist couldn’t get married. Marriage is simply a legal contract. I’m so sick of hearing hypocritical people bringing up religion anytime it best suits their interests. Hating other people because they are different from you is not “Christian” it’s pure ignorance.

  29. Jeffrey Wise November 14, 2008 at 2:42 PM

    So I’ve been reading these comments since you first posted the entry and it really makes me sad to read some of the things people are saying.

    1. Would it really be such an awful place if schools were teaching tolerance in our schools?

    2. If marriage is such a religious institution, why is the state regulating it? If you want “marriage” to stay religious then let’s only recognize civil unions at the state level. That way everyone will be afforded the same equal right. (And for the record civil unions and marriage are not equal!)Under the law now, any citizen is able to enter a contract with any other consenting citizen. Marriage IS a state-regulated contract, thus everyone should be able to enter into said contract. But because of the need to “protect marriage” conservatives have stripped us of these rights.

    3. What the fuck does it matter to you?! Why do you care?! You don’t have to accept what I do…i don’t care, just don’t impeded on my rights!

  30. penny lee November 16, 2008 at 1:20 PM

    The sanctity of marriage is the sanctity of an institutionalized contract or a bond between a man and woman. They enter and accept that contract knowingly and willfully.

    We can simply call that love and that love is a choice and the act to give yourself as a gift, free from all pretenses, to another person. The other person does the same for you too. It’s natural but it requires a lot of virtues, primarily humility and patience, to make it work.

    We get that in relationships of course. The only difference is that in marriage, the couple is bound to stay together through thick and thin forever and all that (This is another issue why some countries haven’t legalized divorce yet). And so they make love and in the sweetest manner, we call them children (or a child). Then the couple raise their family, and the children grow up, they become part of a community, of the society, of the nation, they become a citizen. This growth in the family is still considered an act of love because it requires a great deal of self-sacrifice. So that explains why marriage is sacred. And although we could still get these things from relationships, married couples have more privileges in the laws because of the amount of responsibility imposed on them.

    That being said, the purpose of marriage then is to “procreate.” Procreation builds and sustains a civilization–a civilization primarily built by love, abstraction and objectivity, otherwise known as, principles. The members of the civilization build laws out of these very principles. So it’s only logical to say that laws should protect the natural institutions, such as marriage, and the rights of the people to be able use them for their growth as persons.

    Now, just because some people were able to get married while bastardizing the meaning and defeating the purpose of marriage doesn’t necessarily mean that marriage is like exactly the way these people made it look like.

    There, I explained why I’m (apparently) agreeing with the Prop 8. I didn’t even preach Jesus’ name. Lol. Anyway, I guess this where I should end my uhh… term paper. So uhmm.. thanks for the space Bobby. :)

  31. BobbyBobby November 17, 2008 at 11:31 AM

    Procreation has absolutely nothing to do with marriage, you’re an idiot. I want to have children, be it through a surrogate mother or adopting a child who needs a good family. Why don’t I fall into that same category?

    Because of close minded people like you.

  32. Jeffrey W November 18, 2008 at 2:47 PM

    Dear Penny,

    If your argument were to hold true then the estimated 10% of infertile couples should have their marriage licenses and their rights revoked as well. Also, historically the definition and laws surrounding marriage have been altered while adapting to the needs of our society. For example, the obligatory marriage of man to his brother’s widow was removed in Ancient Israel. The very institution of marriage was founded in Ancient Rome and were mere civil agreements.

    The definition that you present is a mere regulation of sexuality from the church. In order to encourage procreation which helps the spread of their race and species, they changed the definition of marriage in order to encourage strictly pro-creative marital sex.

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *