More on Prop-8 and Scott Eckern

So it turns out that Scott Eckern might not be quite-as-bigoted as his previous actions have indicated and is instead willfully ignorant and uninformed about the causes he donates to. It's a curious defense-- "I'm an idiot! Don't boycott my theater!"-- but it may work.

Comments

[Ben TS]

Wait, what article were you reading? It seems pretty clear that Eckern knew exactly what he was supporting, and is only half-heartedly repentent about it. Basically, he's saying, hey, sorry my religion tells me to be bigoted, no hard feelings, please continue to give me money.

I find this story interesting, because it brings to the fore some very provocative questions about the uneasy alliances and contradictions that have simmered under the surface of American musical theatre for years. It's an art form counts gay men as an overwhelming majority of its practitioners, yet I'm willing to say that the bulk of its consumers are homophobes. It's somewhat similar to the position of blacks in mid-century popular music, only arguably more extreme.

I remember sensing this weird dynamic when I sat in the audience of Chicago about seven years ago. I was surrounded by tourists who were obviously from the heartland, fanny packs and all. This was right after the first Bush election, when it became quite apparent, oh yes, these people really do hate our values here on the East Coast as much as stereotypes suggest. Sitting there in a sea of traditional valued families staring delightedly at a stage peopled with shirtless gay men was so. Damn. Weird.

[isaac]

His defense is that he thought Prop-8 outlawed marriage but protected equal civil union rights for gays when it doesn't and that once he realized the mistake, he donated an equivalent amount of money to equality causes because he thinks gays should get equal rights but that it shouldn't be called "marriage". I have trouble believing this, I think he's just trying to cover his ass.

(FWIW: This is also Obama's position. I think it's an untenable one, personally. If you create two different categories it opens a door to future discrimination)

[Ben TS]

Ah, I see. I sorta thought in your original post that his excuse was he gives money to causes picked randomly out of hat or something. Nooooot that the excuse he gave was all that much better ...

Obama's position on gay marriage bugs me, because he adds the caveat "well, history might prove me wrong in this." Which is pretty weaselly, in my opinion. But, well, one step at a time.

[Dan Cobb]

He's a MORMON for chrissakes! Of course he knew exactly what he was doing since the Mormon church was the biggest bigot in raising money for the pro-Prop 8 crowd.

[Sam]

Excuse me, the Mormon church did not contribute to Prop 8 or any other political issue. The church may have strong beliefs, but they do not tell people how to vote, only to do it. As for Mr. Eckern, what's wrong with him having his own opinion and so what if it doesn't match yours? Lots of straight people pay lots of money to enjoy the theater....guess you don't want their money to support the performers....hmmm. Something to think about--biting the hand that feeds you goes more than one direction.

[Abe Goldfarb]

Apologies, Sam, but over $10 million was spent by the Church of Latter Day Saints on pro Prop 8 advertising. And there has been a strong coalition between Evangelical Christians the the LDS church on the anti-marriage equality movement, dating back to BEFORE Jerry Falwell talked to the President of Mitt Romney's church about working on California together.

And if you can't see the irony in gay performers being patronized by the very people who mock, fear and seek to disempower them, then there's nothing I can do for you. Eckern, meanwhile, makes money off of gay performers. It is shameful to employ them even as he seeks to demolish their rights as Americans.

[Ignorance N. Mirror]

It would be laughable, if people's livelihood were not involved, the intolerace and ignorance of the people who have spurned Scott Eckern. Consider if the Arts publicly ridiculed the choice of homosexuals to be open about their lifestyle to the point that they were forced to resign. Would you rather see segregation that clearly delineates gay performers and their productions from straight productions?

Scot Eckern did not mistreat anyone or do anything illegal. His actions were done as privately as is allowed, so as not to affect his employer. He has now resigned his position to avoid any confusion about his decision being distinct from the views of his employer.

To Scott's defense, evidence is clear that the redefinition of marriage does nothing to benefit society. The European countries that have had years of experience with open marriage laws now have fewer marriages with traditional and homosexual marriages combined, than they had before homosexual marriage was legalized. It is sad that the facts in this case cannot be more widely published due to the stigma of hatred that is being perpetuated by people like you - Dave, Isaac, Dan, and Abe.

[Abe Goldfarb]

Ignorance, I have never seen someone work so hard at avoiding the point. You're clearly trolling, but I want you to actually dispute, with facts, what I said.

And if you're going to say that somehow liberal hatred is responsible for these declining marriage figures being suppressed, I call bullshit. Just as I call bullshit on all bogus Conservative claims of social victimization. Don't seek to disempower gays and then claim your viewpoint is being oppressed.

[Ignorance N. Mirror]

"avoiding the point"? How about showing the intolerance being heaped upon a single person who chose to donate to a cause? How about the book burning on the steps of a Mormon church to protest the church's support of its doctrine?

Political Correctness has already suppressed even larger issues than "social victimization". How about those opposed to Global Warming who had no voice until after it became clear that 1998 was the Global Temperature High Point and we are headed back down to early 1900s temperatures? Here is a link for your education: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

[PJ]

Mr Eckern says that he's sorry that acting on his "personal beliefs" has "offended" others. Mr Eckern, it's not that you simply "hurt the feelings" of many people by your actions but rather that you aided and abetted those who have conspired to inscribe out and out discrimination into the Constitution of the State of California. You sided with those who would deprive others of their rights. That is un-American. And you sought to make your "personal beliefs" into law, forcing them to live by YOUR beliefs instead of their own. That is extremely un-American.

The choice to resign was your own, so don't blame others.

Think of it this way: Some of us find Mormonism relatively strange and unlike our own belief systems, but we would fight to defend you rights to your beliefs. How would you feel about a ballot proposition that singled YOU out and deprived YOU of rights that the state had already granted you?

And you are surprised that the people whose rights have been taken from them, particularly your co-workers aren't happy about this?

But, then again, you've taken away your own sister's right--whether she ever intended to use it or not--so what are the rights of thousands or others to you?

ps God bless Connecticut!

[BooBoo]

I would suggest that those who are so vocal in calling others "bigot" and "intolerant" may want to take a close look in the mirror. Fair warning, you may not like what you see.

[Ben TS]

How the hell conservatives have the cojones to use the argument that liberals are intolerant of intolerance is beyond me.

At the risk of getting extreme with the rhetoric here, it's akin a Nazi making the case that because you were intolerant of his hatred of Jews and Gypsies, you were racist toward German people. It's pure bullshit. Virtually all fundamentalist religion is openly bigoted toward homosexuals, other religions, women, intellectuals, and (to a lesser or greater degree) other races. All major world religions are guilty of murder, rape and child abuse. And yet to be critical of this is bigotry. It's like your abusive dad beating you with a belt for a couple hundred years, then calling the cops when you throw a defensive punch at him.

Alright, enough of the analogies. They just make me heated.

[Ignorance N. Mirror]

Hypocrisy is bliss. I enjoyed P.J.s statement "Some of us find Mormonism relatively strange and unlike our own belief systems, but we would fight to defend you rights to your beliefs."

Do you hear yourself? This a prime example of Mormons defending their beliefs. But, you are actively fighting AGAINST Scott Eckern's ability to peacefully and lawfully stand behind this belief.

[Abe Goldfarb]

Okay....Ignorance N. Mirror. I'm taking a breath here and trying to be cool about it.

Naw, fuck it.

PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ONE GROUP DOES NOT MEAN DENYING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ANOTHER.

Standing behind a belief would mean saying "You know what? I think marriage is between a man and a woman. And that's that." It's not about abandoning current legislation to mob rule, all in order to snatch away a hard-won civil liberty from people who have been treated like second-class citizens for decades.

You are welcome to your viewpoints. I am glad that you are free to express them. I am chagrined that the conservative movement has latched onto the notion of legislating hate by disguising it as "protection" of "normal" Americans. Is any heterosexual couple less married because two homosexuals can be? Are white people less married since the law was changed to allow blacks to? Does your vote mean less now that women can vote?

Evolution, my dear Ignorance. It's the way of America from the beginning.

[Ignorance N. Mirror]

Keep the quotes coming. I'll add them to my collection. "It's not about abandoning current legislation to mob rule, all in order to snatch away a hard-won civil liberty from people who have been treated like second-class citizens for decades."

Mob rule in this case are the protestors, book burners, and the ones hurling threats; not the ones seeking to follow the legislative process.

The hard-won process was the one that passed the law, and then had to go back and pass the amendment. It was anything BUT difficult to wait until a single judge decided to overturn the existing law merely because he disagreed with it.

It is becoming more evident every day that this is not about a right that is apparently being denied. This issue has simply become a fight that some people feel they just have to "win", at all costs. Evolution is a theory. It does not mean we abandon the principles and processes upon which this nation was built.

[Abe Goldfarb]

Of course, Ignorance. Why abandon the principles on which this country was built? After all, the constitution, the document that holds our country's principles in its text, clearly states that gays can't get married.

Oh, WAIT....no, I just checked it! It doesn't say that anywhere! Shit, I must look really stupid!

Maybe that's why so many conservatives have been pushing hard for an amendment to ban gay marriage. Because there is LITERALLY NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS GAYS CAN'T GET MARRIED. In fact, I remember this one passage, trifling though it is, that mentions "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I must have missed the part where it said "except for fags."

We do want to win this at all costs, Ignorance. Because it is about the freedom we cherish in this amazing, majestic, beautiful, flawed, frustrating country but that many of us purchase so cheaply. It's not about a symbolic victory, it's about a tangible broadening of rights for valuable members of society.

You're a half-sentient timewaster parroting expired talking points, Ignorance, and I'm done with you.

[Ignorance N. Mirror]

Of course you're done. You had to resort to vitriolic name-calling .

You should stop and think about the costs you are willing to bear to win this fight. What happens when the winds shift and the courts are legislating in their own interest, against the will of the groups to which you belong? To where will you appeal when all appeals are overturned? Where will you find security when the laws are not being enforced?

[Ben TS]

Ingnorance,

The purpose of the judicial branch is emphatically NOT to write the will of the people into law. Judges are the least subject to the whim of the people for a reason: the founding fathers didn't want our country to descend into lawlessness. Judges are theoretically making decisions based on precedent, constitutionality, and sound reasoning. Unlike today's conservatives, the framers understood that law doesn't, and SHOULDN'T be based on popular opinion.

Furthermore, a judge who is banning gay marriage is FAR more likely to be legislating his own self-interest than one who is legalizing it. Anti-gay-marriage laws are inherently religious. As Isaac has mentioned there has never been an argument about why gay marriage should be illegal that does not hinge on the "eww" (read religious) factor. Oh, I know the trick you're gonna pull here. You're going to go back to the whole "will of the people" tact, in which case we can repeat this whole conversation again.

If you want to argue why gay marriage should be wrong, do so. But argue the issue, please. I'm done with all the clever evasion that goes on here: it becomes a conversation about "activist judges" and "religious intolerance" rather than the actual topic at hand which is WHY IT IS THAT GAYS SHOULD NOT BE MARRIED.

[Ignorance N. Mirror]

You seem to have a problem with adhering to the "will of the people". It makes me wonder why you don't move to a liberal dictatorship.

There are arguments against gay marriage, outside of the omnipresent claims of religious bigotry.

Society sets the norms. We, as a society, have the right to set norms of behavior. Divorce, abortion, public affection, nudity, graphic violence, and profane language are balanced between the extreme positions on both sides to set a societal norm. Obviously not all members of society will be happy with the placement of the fulcrum.

Marriage was not established by government, it was sanctioned by it. Understanding that, the burden of proof is on the proponents of gay marriage as to why government should step in to modify the definition of what constitutes marriage.

There is no empirical evidence that gay marriage benefits those engaged in it, their families, or society. There is statistical evidence that countries that have allowed gay marriage now have fewer marriages overall, decreasing the stability of the family unit.

[isaac]

Ah finally! Some non-religious arguments.

I want to focus on one that you level here Ignorance, because I think it's worth addressing it's this:

"There is statistical evidence that countries that have allowed gay marriage now have fewer marriages overall, decreasing the stability of the family unit."

Correlation is not causation. Most European countries that allow gay marriage are-- despite having official state churches-- far far more secular than our own. Many of them also have legal alternatives to marriage such as civil unions allowed for both gay and straight couples. People feel less of a need to get married in Denmark, for example, most likely because very very few Danes go to Church for more than holidays.

It is the secularism of European societies that has lead to a decline in marriage rates, and it is the secularism (as well as their liberalism) that has made them more open to ideas of gay civil rights.

I'm not exactly sure, frankly that I understand your societal norms argument. Are you saying that since society establishes norms, agitating to change those norms is not okay? Or that judicial interference in those norms is *by its nature* wrong, even when societal norms infringe on civil rights? Because as has been pointed out earlier, we've had plenty of times in this country where social norms did not match up with our ideals as a nation, and it has taken the courts to sort that out. Much of our Constitution is devised, in fact, to protect minorities from the tyranny of of the majority (freedom of speech, for example, stops the minority from being silenced by the majority, the establishment cause is to protect to minority religions from government interference). Another way of putting the tyranny of the majority would be out of control social norms.

Anyway... finally, you talk about marriage not being established by the government, but rather sanctioned by it. This is not exactly true. It's not that the government allows people to enter into a kind of contract that they were doing already. The government instead bestowed upon people entering into this contract hundreds of legal rights and benefits.

Gay couples are saying they want to be able to enter into that contract and get those benefits. There's no reason to stop them from doing so, and ample constitutional grounds (equal protection comes to mind) to give it to them. We could do this under the term "civil unions" but that creates a separate (and unequal) system open to more discrimination.

What I think should be done personally is that the government recognize that the term "marriage" covers a private, civil thing best left up to private organizations such as churches and families and other social groups, and instead call all legal marriages civil unions and allow both gay and straight people to have equal rights within them. IN other words, eliminate the term "marriage" from our laws and replace it with the term "civil union" which better recognizes what legally is really going on.

[Ben TS]

Ignorance,

Re: "There is no empirical evidence that gay marriage benefits those engaged in it, their families, or society." There's also no empirical evidence that marriage in GENERAL beneifits those engaged in it. And while there is evidence suggesting that two parent households are better for raising children, that has little to do with the abstract institution of marriage, and even less to do about GAY marriage.

As re: "You seem to have a problem with adhering to the "will of the people". It makes me wonder why you don't move to a liberal dictatorship." I can cite a basic High School civics textbook to explain why your statement here is ridiculous, but I don't have the energy. I will only say that the day that judges are making decisions based on what the mob is chanting outside is gonna be pretty scary.

[John]

Ignorance N. Mirror is in fact the most informed. How IRONIC is that? Keep playing on emotions liberals while the "other" side plays with FACTS. America is exceptional because it has STANDARDS. Liberals don't know what standards because if they don't get what they want they complain. You may get what you want, but in the end your "every ones equal" game reduces exceptionalism to mediocrity. Just look at the public system - you're half responsible for the dumbing down of America's children.