Residents Join Flickr Photo Fight for Same-Sex Marriage Rights

by Alphaville Herald on 14/06/09 at 4:35 pm

NoH8 Proposition 8 silent protest picture campaign comes to Second Life

by Bunny Brickworks


The ordinary Second Life resident is a lazy, unmotivated and unpolitical slobhiding in mom’s basement without knowing or caring what is happening in thereal world. That might be true for some – but a growing number of residentsare voicing their opinions on California's Proposition 8 ban onsame-sex marriage. With real life grassroots campaigns taking on a new urgency – driven in part by a California Supreme Court ruling upholding Proposition 8 – protests are now spilling over into Second Life..

This online movement is powered by word of mouth, in-world groups, and notecards [text after the jump] as the virtual world social media are harnessed in-world and via flickr to explainProposition 8 — and call on residents to join  the NoH8 campaign- a photo project and silent protest started by RL celebrity photographer Adam Brouska. Trace Osterham and Kristen Pick are organizing Second Life in-world activity with some success. YesterdayTrace Osterham had already taken more than 180 pictures of individuals, allwearing the face paint and duct tape in support of the cause.

A flickr group has been established for all those who create their own picturesand post them on their streams Free face paint and duct tape attachments are available at days like these I am more than proud of my fellow residents, artists andflickrites!

‘On November 4th, 2008 Proposition 8 passed, amending the stateConstitution to ban same-sex marriage.

In the wake of the defeat, there has been a groundswell of initiativefrom within the community at grassroots level. Seizing this opportunity, newpolitical and protest organizations are forming almost daily. The NOH8 Campaignis a photo project & silent protest created by celebrity photographer AdamBouska and partner Jeff Parshley in direct response to the passage of Proposition8.

The campaign started with portraits of everyday Californians who supportMarriage Equality and soon rose to celebrities, military personnel, brothers& sisters, law enforcement, lesbian mothers, directors, politicians,newlyweds, and more. Photos feature subjects with duct tape over their mouthssymbolizing their voices not being heard and NOH8 painted on one cheek inprotest.’

(from the NO H8 campaign website,

(see also Adam Bouska's Flickr

As residents of SL and as individual human beings, we have the right toa voice. The NO H8 campaign in SL is a way for us to say ‘Hey, we want ourvoices to be heard’

Please pass the word on, and anyone who is interested should contactTrace Osterham for a photo session.

Thank you,

Trace Osterham / Kristen Pick

19 Responses to “Residents Join Flickr Photo Fight for Same-Sex Marriage Rights”

  1. derp

    Jun 14th, 2009

    what’s with the funky text on this article

  2. Hugh Gengin

    Jun 15th, 2009

    What about the right to marry my pet horse? I promise, it’s a stable relationship …

  3. Ari Blackthorne

    Jun 15th, 2009

    Wait… this is “news”?

    Prop-8 was decided a long-assed time ago.

    I don’t live in California (thanks GOD) – but the people of California have spoken, the courts have found it is legal according to the California Constitution…

    Whinng and crying about it does nothing except to show who the whiners and crybabies are. Sheesh.

    It’s not a ban on “GAYdom” – it a ban on “Marriage”. There is still “Domestic Partnership” which is for all intent’s and purposes the exact same thing. The only difference is there isn’t a bible involved, which the Bible more or less calls homosexuality a bastardaize abomination anyway.

    So it seems to be nthe prop-8 detracters are after nothing more than to piss-off the prop-8 supporters. What hypocrites. LOL

    As for me? I have no problem with those who want to suckface with their own sex. Go for it. Just don’t shove it down my own throat and keep it in your bedroom and other “appropriate” places and we’re all good to go.

    As for my thoughts on Prop-8? Just like I said. Those people have spoken. So stop bitching and go somewhere else where they already have legalized it. I personally couldn’t really care any less one way or the other.

    But it’s funny as heel to see all these people ready to blow a gasket over it all!


  4. Bunny Brickworks

    Jun 15th, 2009

    Ari, the only thing ‘funny as heel’ in here is your lousy spelling…

  5. OMGWTF Barbecue

    Jun 15th, 2009

    Actually, it wasn’t decided a “long-assed time ago”. The appeal went to the California Supreme Court, and the decision was made on May 27th to uphold Proposition 8.

    As for the rest of your post, Ari, I can’t even begin to say how flawed your information is, and how much I disagree with the points you’ve made.

    So I’ll just say – I’m sorry you feel that way, but clearly a lot of us feel that this is something worth fighting for.

  6. marilyn murphy

    Jun 16th, 2009

    im sympathetic to the cause. if i were in calif i would have voted to let homosexuals marry. let them enjoy.
    the decision by the calif supreme court to support the democratic process was a no brainer. since the voters, and not a judge or politician made this choice, i am really not sure what anyone hopes to accomplish here. another vote?
    if some people want to display their displeasure with the residents of california thats fine and their right. i think that is truly about all that they can accomplish.
    i dont know how they break down voter demographics. but the numbers i have seen indicated that black voters went 70% against same sex marriage. however, the activists who staged protests did so in front of catholic churches. an interesting display of political correctness from victims of political correctness.

  7. Ari Blackthorne

    Jun 16th, 2009

    @ Bunny

    No sprechen yala anglish LOL

  8. Emily Quinsette

    Jun 16th, 2009

    Yet another way for people on SL to make motions as though they care, without actually doing anything about it. Seems like more of a vanity project for everyone to point to, showing everyone just how compassionate they truly are, while still enjoying the luxury of sitting on their ass and doing nothing for the actual cause. This allows them to look down their nose at everyone else, like so:

    “The ordinary Second Life resident is a lazy, unmotivated and unpolitical slob hiding in mom’s basement without knowing or caring what is happening in the real world. That might be true for some – but a growing number of residents are voicing their opinions on California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage.”

    Translation: “You’re all mouth-breathing dullards incapable of having the same nuanced and deep understanding of the world’s events as we, the enlightened, who not only know about the news, but we express our outrage about it.” Nevermind they use cartoon avatars to do it. So brave, putting your virtual persona on the line like that.

    And while I might disagree with most of what Ari said, he was right when he noted that Prop 8 is nothing new. The outraged residents of SL have had more than 8 months since Prop 8 was initially passed, and far more time if you include the run-up to Prop 8 to do something, anything, to fight this shitty thing. I’m sure the thousands of couples who are not allowed to have their love officially recognized, who are denied rights that straight couples take for granted, who are treated as outcasts after years of fighting for equality will be so very moved by a bunch of lazy, unmotivated and unpolitical slobs hiding in mom’s basement who think they’re freedom fighters after 8 months of silence.

    I have no problem with people who voice an opinion, only when they delude themselves into thinking it makes them heroic.

  9. Jessica Holyoke

    Jun 16th, 2009

    Until California can get the votes to get the issue on the ballot again, which I am not sure if they can simply switch back and forth on the issue, there really isn’t anything anyone can do but voice their displeasure, or possibly boycott California.

    My predictio n is that California will have to have a new constitutional convention to get rid of these ballot initiatives and if either side is smart, they will have their views enshrined in the new constitution.

  10. At0m0 Beerbaum

    Jun 16th, 2009

    note: all the lesbians on SL are gay men.

  11. nuh-uh

    Jun 16th, 2009

    @At0m0 Beerbaum said
    note: all the lesbians on SL are gay men.

    No. they are straight men. The gay men are the straight fashionistas.

  12. marilyn murphy

    Jun 17th, 2009

    even if they hold a constitutional convention, it should properly reflect the will of the majority in the state. lets not presume that it will automatically overturn or change the status quo as it is.

  13. Jessica Holyoke

    Jun 17th, 2009


    I was going to do a measured response, but I think its hard to with this issue. This is especially because there are a number of same sex marriages sanctioned by the state of California before Prop 8 passed. So there are people who are delegated to a second class status because more people felt that they shouldn’t be married than people who thought that they should and voted. It may be that the next California constitution still has marriage as between one man and one woman and it might also invalidate the current California same sex marriages.

    But I believe that this is a civil rights issue; that people being denied the ability to marry, and being denied all the rights that come with being married, is a civil rights issue that a majority should not deny to a minority. And that’s what we have, a majority of people saying to other people, I don’t believe you should be married simply because I don’t agree with what you do.

  14. marilyn murphy

    Jun 18th, 2009

    hi jessica: i hope all is well with you.

    every individual in the world has to decide what rule of law they will live with. the vast majority meekly accept whatever system the country they are born into has in place. eventually, those who are unhappy with their system either emigrate or work to change the system.
    as i stated earlier, the calif supreme court had no choice in this matter if they were going to follow the law.
    i responded to this story meaning to ask two questions. the first is: is this protest merely to state an objection to the choice the majority made in their vote?
    second is: is this a desire to change the system in calif, and if so in what way?
    i think the first is just noise. the fact is, these people got the issue to a vote. these people are claiming a right that does not exist in law. when they tried to get it into law the democratically leaning system turned them down. being angry is understandable but…heres where the second question comes in.
    so if this minority wants to change the system with a protest, what is the structure and aim of the change? this is never stated. they want to scream at everyone that their rights are being violated. well. this is not a productive arguement.
    i cannot think of a similar situation in our nations history. there may be one but i dont appear to be able to reference any. if someone wants to cite the indians, the slaves, or some other oppressed group in the past they are way off base. the similarity between those groups and the law are totally different from a vocal minority demanding to have their lifestyle be recognized by law.
    i am sympathetic. i really don’t personally understand why the majority would deny marriage between same sex partners. well, they did.

  15. Valentina Kendal

    Jun 18th, 2009

    “i cannot think of a similar situation in our nations history. there may be one but i dont appear to be able to reference any. if someone wants to cite the indians, the slaves, or some other oppressed group in the past they are way off base. the similarity between those groups and the law are totally different from a vocal minority demanding to have their lifestyle be recognized by law.”

    How about this example? The state restricted the right of certain people to marry, based on the elected representatives interpreting the will of the majority of the people. If the Supreme Court had voted otherwise, would the law still be ‘right’?

    Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court by a 9-0 vote declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924″, unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. The plaintiffs, Mildred Loving (nee Mildred Delores Jeter, a woman of African and Rappahannock Native American descent, and Richard Perry Loving a white man, were residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia who had been married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia, having left Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act, a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. They were caught sleeping in their bed by a group of police officers who had invaded their home in the hopes of finding them in the act of sex (another crime). In their defense, Ms. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom. That, instead of defending them, became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge…

    Progress comes much more slowly in some states than others, especially those with a ballot initiative process. Therefore change can only come by changing minds, one at a time if need be. Other than to show our displeasure with the will of the majority, that is what I believe the protest is about – changing people’s minds.

  16. marilyn murphy

    Jun 19th, 2009

    i remember that one now, valentina. i read about that some years ago. that couple actually spent time in jail and moved to another state for years afterward.
    if the protests are about changing minds thats fine. some of the extremists have done some things that made my mother even more hardened against changing her mind. i use mom as a touchstone for what older women think, btw.
    it will take a very long time.

  17. Joe Cheray

    Jun 20th, 2009

    While I don’t have an opinion on same sex marriage I do have an opinion about Second Life folks mmm not caring about the issues. I am a 37 year old mother to a son with Cerebral Palsy and there are a lot of things we get exclude from in the community because of his disability, I am also restricted from being able to do a lot of things outside the home due to my own disability of having a partially paralyzed hand. In saying that I want to mention that I am thankful that there is a place like Second Life for me to go into and be able to do things that I often can’t do in the real world like attend a bible study or book discussions, poetry readings, assist at a building school to name a few things that I currently do inworld. Doing some of these things in the real world are impossible if I am in too much pain to do anything except sit in front of my pc.

    So while I do not have an opinion about same sex marriage I can relate to being in a group that faces challenges and tries to deal with those challenges to the best of my ability.

  18. Axle Bookmite

    Jun 24th, 2009

    I feel that Prop 8 should be repealed speaking as a gay man and as a American, i’ve read the US Constitution and it states “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,nor prohibit the free exercise thereoft”.

    Because fact is many relgions consider being gay to be a sin and isn’t that in a way respecting a establisment of religion?

    Because what part of the First Amendment do they don’t understand?

  19. aaa

    Jul 17th, 2009

    Geez, why not then allow polygamy?

Leave a Reply