My Own Opinion on the Scott Eckern Thing

I have been unintentionally a bit cagey about my opinion on the whole Scott Eckern Fiasco (not to be confused with the Rachel Corrie Debacle).  SO here's what I think:

First off, I am unsure whether or not Scott Eckern knew that Prop-8 stripped unmarried gay couples from getting equal rights under a civil unions framework.  He claims he didn't know.  And if he contributed because of the active encouragement of the Mormon Church hierarchy (which went all-in in favor of Prop-8) and if he simply followed the issue based on the advertisements the pro-8 people put together (which misleading stated that this was about preserving "marriage" and had nothing to do with legal rights but just the term) he might indeed have been misled.  I personally get more knowledgeable about causes I contribute to, but then again, I don't have a religious order telling me what to think and leading to my being less curious about the world. This is again a problem with many organized religions, and a real problem with churches trying to gain more ability to political advocacy work without endangering their tax breaks.

It is worth saying that all-in-on-8 move by the Mormon Church was actually controversial within the Mormon community and therefore it is not outside-the-realm-of-believability that Eckern knew exactly what he was voting for and was fudging things to try to save his ass.

Ultimately, thought I don't give a shit.

I also want to say that I think that calls to have him removed are wrong, but calls to boycott the theater are not even though the latter would eventually probably case the former.  There's a symbolic difference between the two that I think is important:

Employees should be free to make political decisions and do advocacy work without it affecting their jobs.  At the same time, people doing business with your company should be free to withhold their business due to your political beliefs and actions.  People don't eat at Dominos not because Dominos does anything wrong but because its founder funds Operation Rescue and they don't want their money going to line his pockets so it can be passed to them.  Similarly, Marc Shaiman doesn't want his work to generate the salary of someone who will then pass some portion of that salary onto causes that limit his own right to marry his partner.

This might seem like some kind of token academic philosophical thing, but these differences are important.  We don't want to live in a society where you can be fired because of what you believe. But we do want to live in a society where people can with some freedom choose who and who not to do business with and who and who not to enrich. So yes, I hope donors and artists boycott the theater.

And no, I don't think civil unions are good enough.  Two separate categories creates a gateway to discriminate against one group.  The only way to prevent that is to make all marriage one category. 

I will say, I find it a bit weird that Mormons and African Americans, two minority groups in California, are getting most of the blame when it comes to Prop-8.  There were other more mainstream religions that supported it.  There were plenty of white people who voted for it.  And the no-on-8 campaign was badly organized and didn't do a good enough job of getting its message out.  I am suspicious of this increased focus, largely owing to my own belonging to a fringe radical american religion for most of my upbringing.  It's easy for white people who don't belong to a kooky fringe religion to look everywhere but at the mote in their own eye. Do I think homophobia in African American and Mormon communities needs to be dealt with? Of course I do.  It's that it's the only thing being discussed as "the problem" that I take issue with.

Comments

[Trochee]

Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight has an excellent analysis pointing out how it's not a very productive or even accurate thing to blame African-American voters for prop 8.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html
and hurrah, it's not only the Mormon church, either.

[Ken]

“I understand that my choice of supporting Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings, maybe even betrayal,” Mr. Eckern said. “It was not my intent. I honestly had no idea that this would be the reaction.”

You had no idea, Scott?
Yes, my friends, another testament to how religion broadens the mind.

[Marilyn Reed]

It's always wonderful and heart warming to see how open and tolerant you liberals are to those who disagree with you. Gosh, it really is great to see how broad minded you are towards blacks, Mormons, Christians,& others who happen to think that marriage is a union of man and woman. Go figure. I'm sure that Scott will be black balled in CA & NY now because you are all so caring, forgiving, and tolerant. What a shame that a talented individual should be blackballed because of your own prejudices.

[Henry Akona]

It is impossible to know if Mr. Eckern's resignation was entirely voluntary or if it was encouraged by the board. Nonetheless, as artistic director he was not merely a "employee" of the company: he was an executive and the public face of the organization. Executives and politicians are (and should be) held to a higher standard. They resign all the time for saying stupid things (just ask Larry Summers or Trent Lott). What they say (and here I'm using the Republican definition of political contributions as "speech") is not illegal, but, if it undermines their capacity for leadership, they have no choice but to go. Mr. Eckern has admitted to being (at best) a careless dupe, which is enough to cast doubt upon his fitness to lead any organization. It's a tragedy but not a witch-hunt. He brought it upon himself and, if he could not maintain the trust and goodwill of the patrons, members, artists and employees of the organization, he was right to resign.

[Ken]

Dear Marilyn,
How would you like this broad-mindedness you claim we liberals lack to manifest itself? Congratulating Scott Eckern for his support of legislation that would deny a group of people a basic civil right? Donating $1000 each to his theater? Must we slit our own throats (metaphorically) to prove to you that we are sufficiently broad-minded?
Eckern is free to believe anything he wants, and he is also free to back up those beliefs with monetary donations. But doing so doesn't erect a protective force field around him. He made the conscious decision to take these steps, and now he's feeling the heat. Is it any surprise that the people who would suffer as a result of his support for this proposition, and who are also in large measure the creators of, and the audience for, the material his theater showcases (as well as those like me who are sympathetic to the cause), should have something to say about it?

[JW]

Oh my god! That is ridiculus! I mean, mabey you could find a reason to give sctot eckern the benifit of the doubt, but really? How could he not know that prop 8 stripped the rights of gays!?