Gay and lesbian artists calling for a boycott of California Musical Theater, after it was discovered that CMT artistic director Scott Eckern donated $1,000 to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, have succeeded in pressuring Eckern to resign from his position with CMT, the nonprofit theater company he served for almost all of his adult life. The Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch has the press release.
I worked for Music Circus in 1996 and 1997, when Eckern was the managing director. He interviewed me for my first position, and I worked closely with him (as everyone did who was anywhere near the tent, it seemed — from volunteers to headliners). He is a good man and plainly no bigot. It saddens me to think that all the work he did for that company — and on behalf of the gay community — will count for nothing.
A group of citizens publicly attacking a man and ruining his career for expressing his beliefs should frighten people on both sides of this issue. This is not the way to win a political argument about tolerance and respect for all lifestyles. This is a sure-fire way to frighten the undecided middle, people who are concerned with ending discrimination but loathe to move too quickly to abandon the permanent things. Perhaps free-thinking gays and lesbians should go ahead with the boycott of CMT for kowtowing to this pressure.
| « FREE car washes for veterans at Harv’s today | Sacramento gets the “Colbert Bump”! » |
75 Comments | Leave a comment
“Some of our best friends are gay”, right? Prop 8 supporters ARE bigots.
posted 11/12/08 at 9:15 am #
Man, you guys used to talk about the feel good stuff happening in and around Sacramento. The road less traveled, etc.
Now it is all politics and current events. People can get their politics anywhere. They come to the Sac Rag for the atmosphere and the attitude.
posted 11/12/08 at 9:45 am #
So we’re supposed to tolerate the intolerant who want to treat us like second class citizens? Anyone who would support a campaign aimed at stripping gay people of their rights is no friend of the gay community. Scott Eckern is a fool for thinking he could make a public statement — and, yes, a campaign donation is a public statement — against the community that frequents his business and not suffer any consequences.
posted 11/12/08 at 9:49 am #
He resigned. He wasn’t fired.
People have the right to boycott.
He had his right to vote and contribute the way he did and others have the right to dislike it and the right to stop buying his product/service.
Boycotts and protests were a part of MLK’s Civil Rights Movement too.
posted 11/12/08 at 9:56 am #
He indeed resigned, as I reported above.
posted 11/12/08 at 9:58 am #
People are what their actions show them to be. Nothing more or less. I’m not going to judge him, but he materially supported a movement whose only goal was to take rights away from a minority group. You can call that whatever you want to call it, but it’s the truth.
Boycotts and “voting with your wallet” are a far better catalyst for change, often, than even voting. If people actually want to hold companies accountable - and people accountable - then this is the only real way to do it. I feel bad that someone you like was hurt, here, but nobody held a gun to his head and said “support this political action.” It was his choice. We all live with the consequences of our actions, good or bad, and I am not sure it’s worth complaining when someone faces negative reaction over their own actions.
posted 11/12/08 at 10:14 am #
This boycott was expressly for the purpose of ruining Eckern’s career. You boycott a business to bring about a certain outcome, in this case the desired outcome was the removal of a man whose actions otherwise showed him to be a friend of the gay community.
The bottom line for me is that if you desire to change minds you can’t bring that about by smearing everyone who disagrees. The goal of the gay community at the moment does not appear to be to win an argument about social change, it appears to be to instill fear in the opposition until nobody is willing to speak his or her mind. It seems like the right approach would be to explain to the electorate why the definition of marriage should change with the times.
posted 11/12/08 at 10:46 am #
How on earth is he not a bigot, just because he sure seemed like a nice guy back when you knew him? I know that’s hard for you, but clearly, you didn’t see all sides of the guy. If he felt strongly enough about selling out the rights of a good chunk of people (some of which I’d bet he knew through his job, not to mention his SISTER) to give money towards doing so, um, yes, he’s a bigot. There is no way to say “I just want to save marriage” under these circumstances and not be a bigot. Sorry.
That said, this is rather surprising that the job thing went this far.
posted 11/12/08 at 10:59 am #
QED
posted 11/12/08 at 11:48 am #
> He is a good man and plainly no bigot.
Plainly, the second half of that sentence is a crock of sh*t.
posted 11/12/08 at 11:56 am #
Ironic and HYPOCRITICAL, this supposed “tolerance” that Prop 8 opponents so dearly espouse and embrace. Reverse intolerance, of sorts … but people are too blinded by hysteria, and unable to see this.
posted 11/12/08 at 1:12 pm #
sorry, i refuse to have the principle of “tolerance” twisted so cynically.
it is not intolerant to confront one’s oppressors. the principle of tolerance does not require one to tolerate bigotry against onesself. there is a difference between turning the other cheek and staying in an abusive relationship.
posted 11/12/08 at 1:24 pm #
This endless framing of “tolerance” as requiring that we allow bigotry because to disallow it would be to stifle someone’s freedom of religion is not only ludicrous, it’s obscene.
posted 11/12/08 at 1:48 pm #
it’s “palinesque” …
(you know, like the liberal media elites trampling on her first amendment rights when her attacks on an opponent are questioned.)
posted 11/12/08 at 2:09 pm #
How sad. To Mr. Eckern I would say that it appears quite selfless to resign rather than subject his employer to a boycott. Admirable, but so unfortunate.
To everyone else let me start by saying I don’t care if you call me a bigot or anything else, because I make my votes based on what I think, not on bullying, namecalling, whining and temper tantrums by others. In this case I voted for Prop 8, but I was on the fence and here is why: I observe that a committed partnership between two men or two women is different than a traditional marriage. Different in terms of what it offers to society, different in terms of culture and yes, different in terms of morality. My vote was an expression of that observation. I want the right to privately hold my opinion, peacefully convince others of its correctness and most importantly teach my child as I see fit on the subject without the interference of a political movement that seems particularly bent on silencing those who disagree. To be sure, my personal assessment of the differences involved stems from beliefs that some others don’t share, and I desire that the government refrain from imposing those beliefs on others whenever it is possible to do so. I also desire that the attachments felt by two people for each other be treated with respect and compassion no matter their genders. Consequently I might have been willing to compromise my interests (and vote no on
if convinced that gay couples were suffering any actual, substantive harm when their domestic partnerships were not called marriages. No such harm was ever identified. Every time the issue was discussed, debated, or addressed in campaign materials, the refrain was basically “stop asking questions; you’re a hateful bigot if you want to think this through.” That is unconvincing when you have a backbone. The reaction now by the gay rights movement does nothing but underscore my concern that the marriage movement is about little more than compelling people like me to abandon personal beliefs and teach my son a view of morality I do not share. Convince me it is about something else and next time you might have my vote.
posted 11/12/08 at 2:26 pm #
p.s for some reason my computer changed “no on 8″ to no on smilie face. For the record I am pro-smilie face.
posted 11/12/08 at 2:27 pm #
I don’t tolerate intolerance!
posted 11/12/08 at 2:56 pm #
I want the right to privately hold my opinion, peacefully convince others of its correctness and most importantly teach my child as I see fit on the subject without the interference of a political movement that seems particularly bent on silencing those who disagree
A fatuous statement. You already have the right you are asking for. If you don’t believe me, look up the Bill of Rights and read the first Amendment.
Gays are angry because they feel they had a right taken from them. If that upsets you, consider this. We often feel guilty about doing things we might nevertheless feel need to be done. One way to deal with that guilt is to project the offense that caused the guilt onto others. You say that the gay rights movement is “bent” on silencing you, but maybe it is you who would like to silence all those angry protests that make you feel a twinge of guilt.
It’s an interpretation to think about anyway.
http://bramble.tumblr.com/post/59391016/kj-on-the-colbert-report
posted 11/12/08 at 2:57 pm #
Brambles:
1) No gay person is silenced by having his or her relationship called a domestic partnership rather than a marriage.
2) I’m not that interested in psychology but if you’re arguing that the basis for some folks’ opinions is projected guilt the same could be said of some in the gay rights movement. Perhaps one motivation for so vehemently insisting a relationship be titled marriage is to resolve guilty feelings about sexual attraction by demanding a sense of legitimacy. I don’t presume to know if that motivation exists. I’m just saying your point cuts both ways.
posted 11/12/08 at 3:16 pm #
This boycott was expressly for the purpose of ruining Eckern’s career.
I think that is probably right. Eckern is a scapegoat, and his ruined career is not going to help either side of this debate.
Yet Eckern strikes me as a grade-A fool. It’s hard for me to pity him.
posted 11/12/08 at 3:24 pm #
Hey Meg,
Lori Hahn has a great post regarding the difference between domestic partnership and marriage…and why gays are fighting for the right to marry. Check it out under the Oct 31st post here at SacRag.
Also, Cynthia Hubert (Bee) wrote a decent story today about the differences: in essence; “federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage, which in the US is only legal in Massachuesetts and Connecticut. Federal benefits and protections, therefore would not be available, ie., filing joint returns, Social Security Benefits, some pensions, health insurance, Medicaid, and family leave”…not to mention (as Lori did) that if one moves out of the state where DP is recognized…then no more protection at all.
Also, in the Bee today, on the same page…a story goes on to say that opponents of Prop 8 specifically asked their supporters not to target individuals: “we achieve nothing if we isolate those who did not stand with us in this fight”. Don’t generalize about one entire group (regardless of how they voted) by the behavior of some in that group.
(for those who majored in English..skip any critical analysis of my comment please)
posted 11/12/08 at 3:26 pm #
First point, I agree with you.
Second point, I was talking about you in particular, not all pro-8 voters. I was interpreting your statement, because it came off to me as loaded with projection. Of course, interpretations are never determinative. They are merely food for thought
posted 11/12/08 at 3:42 pm #
“bigot”
Pronunciation:
\ˈbi-gət\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, hypocrite, bigot
Date:
1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance;
Why is it that any person who agrees that the term “marriage” should include only one man and one woman suddenly called a ‘bigot?’ Yes, I can say that “some of my closest friends are gay” because some of my closest friends ARE gay- does that mean I have to support everything they believe in and do, de jure? There is a tolerance and compassion there, but the moment that a group’s rights begin to infringe on my moral and ethical beliefs- why should I spinelessly roll over and not stand up for my moral and ethical beliefs? And just because I stand up for my moral and ethical beliefs I should automatically be labeled a hateful bigot? Who’s more intolerant then- the one who voted for Prop 8, or the person who doesn’t accept the fact that there are compassionate and loving people who voted for Prop 8?
If any one of my gay friends asked me why I voted the way I did, we would have a very uncomfortable conversation, but I would still be honest with them- it goes against what I believe to be true. We live in such a polarized political climate, that would automatically mean I am ‘against them,’ but I think that’s too narrow-minded of thinking. I am not ‘against them,’ and certainly I am in favor of all of the benefits and protections afforded to registered domestic partnerships, but do I believe that what we are dealing with here is a ‘marriage’ as I believe it should be defined? No. And as long as we continue to debate over the term ‘marriage,’ I am going to vote as my morals and my faith influence me- without hatred and with compassion for others.
But I will not be bullied into submission as those who have chosen to vandalize, name-call, and assault would like me to be.
posted 11/12/08 at 3:46 pm #
Didn’t the ice skating rink open…how about that. holiday season already.
posted 11/12/08 at 3:58 pm #
whatever + Moe: I agree that the “intolerance of intolerance is intolerant” assertion is not a serious argument, but it is not ludacris. Calling someone like Scott Eckern a bigot is crying wolf. Nobody is going to take it seriously. It’s a very grave accusation to throw out there, and lodging it at every single person who voted for this proposition is not helping to make a serious case for why marriage should not be defined as 1 man + 1 woman.
Melly, thanks for pointing out that quote from the No on 8 folks, here is a link to the statement. It’s probably too late for Eckern but hopefully people will listen to that advice.
posted 11/12/08 at 4:09 pm #
Hey! How ’bout that skating rink? I can’t believe it’s time for me to put up those lights again already!
posted 11/12/08 at 4:17 pm #
@ Melly: “opponents of Prop 8 specifically asked their supporters not to target individuals” So, the people who caused Mr. Eckern to resign weren’t supporters of Prop 8? Nor, I suppose, were the people who tagged the Mormon church?
With reference to a demonstration of the rights that are being infringed, the only reason that I could find in any of Ms. Hahn’s comments or the webpages that she directed us to, is that the anti-Prop 8 community wants Federal rights bestowed upon them. This proposition does nothing to bestow those rights, except make California 1 of 50 states where this could have been legal. The rights and recognitions of the marriage do not translate across state lines. Durable powers of attorney, wills, etc. do.
A state ballot inititave is not the right way to affect Federal change. If I want a clean energy policy, I don’t pressure the City Council to adopt one, I write my congressperson, or my senator, or the President. I lobby zealously for my position. I donate money to causes that support my position.
Again, I find no rights being damaged, except for Mr. Eckern’s rights to employment. This was a constructive discharge be constructively discharged (resignation in response to a situation that a reasonable person would find unbearable) and it likely makes this resignation actionable in a court of law against CMT. How sad that a non-profit organization with a Board of Directors who are so highly revered in this community (bank directors, former City Managers, etc) has allowed this to happen. I would think if CMT was worried about a boycott, they would worry about the 55.5% of people in the Sacramento Area (roughly 375k people) who supported Prop 8. I would think they would worry about subscribers and season ticket holders who have called today to cancel their subscriptions. I would think they would worry that in the name of tolerance and acceptance that they have violated an individuals Civil Rights (ones actually spelled out in the US Constitiution).
This is wrong, and people need to stand up, on both sides of this issue, and say this is wrong. Prop 8 supporters saying they told people not to target others isn’t enough. This is wrong. It doesn’t matter how you feel about the issue, attacking someone’s job because they participated in the process is wrong.
To those who scream “bigot” in response to every comment, I leave you with this: in 1998 CMT was given the Rosetta LeNoire Award for contributions to increased diversity within the American theatre by the Actor’s Equity Association. Sounds like a place that employs, and continues to give promotions to, a bigot for 25 years.
posted 11/12/08 at 4:31 pm #
Colbert says, “California banned gay marriage. In other news, Iowa has banned corn.”
Speaking of which, why aren’t you all talking about KJ’s appearance on the REPOR(T)?
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=210310
posted 11/12/08 at 5:05 pm #
If KJ doesn’t do a good job they’re going to trade him to fresno.
posted 11/12/08 at 5:10 pm #
I read through this post, and the other prop 8 post from the other day, and I am still stumped on a few issues.
I think most would agree:
Physical and destructive action towards others is wrong.
Boycotting because of your beliefs is not.
Eckern made a public contribution to an organization that is required by law to make public thier donors, effectively, publicly endorsing the measure.
Eckern got a lot of negative pressure for this.
Eckern resigned because of this pressure.
He made the choice to make a public contribution, logically knowing the potential consequences of these actions in his industry.
He made the choice to resign.
Question 1: Why should I feel bad for him? If anything, at the end of the day, he can be proud of standing up for what he believes so strongly in.
I keep reading posts that say “…there is no difference in the rights.” then ten or twelve aggravated and antagonized people (like myself) flutter around to find links or posts that really nail differences, and are successfull, or not. Well, why does this even need to about taxes, or healthcare, or wills? The defintive right that Gays don’t have, is to flat out say they are married. To some, that is all they want. To some, you could probably say, we aren’t going to give you the same rights as hetero couples, but, well, you can say your married like everyone else. You can even get a certificate like them, and you can tell your friends and your Mom that your married, and that would be enough. After lifetimes of self loathing, depression, etc, they get to be “the same” on paper.
Question 2: Does anyone have A reason for not recognizing two commited same sex partners as married OTHER than ones based on religious or moral beliefs?
Question 3 (three parts): Should laws pertaining to equal rights, be differentiated by religious morality? (So help me, if someone says “then why don’t we make murder legal” - you know what I mean here.) & is lawmaking based on religious perspective legal per our Consitution? Are there any other CIVIL laws that are based on religious or moral theory?
I am not interested in a group think, “well apparently 55% of the population thinks so” response. I am interested in individual perspectives based on personal beliefs and legal statutes (if anyone knows them).
posted 11/12/08 at 5:17 pm #
CSI Sac,
A few points.
1) Eckern was a dummy, and by the the logic of what comes around goes around he got what he deserved, but being drummed out of your job because of your politics is always ugly. There is no point in denying that. It’s too obvious.
2) “Are there any other CIVIL laws that are based on religious or moral theory?”
You have to distinguish between gay marriage as a civil right and gay marriage as a legislated right. From what I understand, its settled law that legislatures can outlaw something because it is “immoral.” Think prostitution and gambling. So if 50% plus one voters in California say gay marriage should be outlawed because it is “immoral” or “ungodly” no court is going to overturn it on the basis that morality can’t be legislated.
However, the California Supreme court ruled that gay marriage should be considered a civil right . They ruled that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation is unconstitutional under the state Constitution.
However, prop 8 CHANGED the state Constitution, so now we are in a situation where two branches of government are at loggerheads. This will have to be resolved in the courts.
I’m pretty skeptical that the courts will toss out 8. I think gays will have to be patient, and in four years the issue will reemerge and hopefully gay marriage will prevail. Be hopeful, because a big chunk of yes on 8 voters are old and will be dead in 4 years.
posted 11/12/08 at 6:46 pm #
Kel Munger has a very good post on this topic today
posted 11/12/08 at 7:46 pm #
I still want to know how someone in musical theater has $1,000 to give away to any cause….
posted 11/12/08 at 8:36 pm #
From what I read in his statement and his actions, he doesn’t sound like a bigot. He does sound like a damned fool, though, to think that donating $1,000 to support a measure that amends the Constitution to restrict the rights of a group wouldn’t be personally hurtful to members of that group, especially when the campaign for Prop 8 depended so much on demonizing homosexual relationships.
The boycott may not helpful to the gay movement’s image, but it’s one of the best ways in a free-market democracy to oppose someone for their political beliefs. Far better than violence or petitioning the government to punish the person. The arithmetic is simple here: Scott Eckren used the money he made off of the theater community to fight against gay marriage. Why the hell would someone who deeply cares about gay marriage go and patronize his business to fill his pockets? So I don’t begrudge the people who felt that acting according to their principles was more important than being perceived as an angry bunch.
It’s probably better that he was pressured to resign (and bravo to him for doing so gracefully). I don’t know the makeup of the theater demographic in Sacramento, but I would think it would be an awkward position for the homosexuals involved in theater to work with a man who donated a considerable amount of money towards a cause that - regardless of the religious perspective - advocated a setback to that community.
posted 11/12/08 at 8:36 pm #
Right power says, facetiously:
“Why is it that any person who agrees that the term “marriage” should include only one man and one woman suddenly called a ‘bigot?’”
That is not what happened here.
A particular group ALREADY HAD A RIGHT, granted by the courts.
Another group tried to TAKE THAT RIGHT AWAY, and succeeded.
You can agree that the term marriage should include whatever you want.
Nobody is trying to convince you otherwise.
What you seem to be missing is the reality of the situation: there is an ENORMOUS difference between your personal beliefs, and actually going out of your way to strip a minority group of their rights.
Eckern has quite a bit of personal integrity. He had unpopular beliefs, in his particular market, and he stood up for them. Good for him. I wish most people could do this. I don’t agree with his beliefs, but I respect that he had the balls to take his lumps.
posted 11/12/08 at 8:37 pm #
HeyMeg said:
1) No gay person is silenced by having his or her relationship called a domestic partnership rather than a marriage.
1) This is missing the forest for the trees, or some other cliche. Though some in the anti-Prop 8 genuinely do care about being able to use the word “marriage” to describe their relationship, the main problem is that civil unions do not confer the federal rights given to marriage. So marrying your green-card gay lover in California would not confer the upgrade in immigration benefits, for example.
Giving gays the right to marry in CA, or any other state, of course would do nothing to directly change federal law. But if you are of the preference that the country’s laws are effected by a change in the majority of state laws (rather than the federal government passing a law and forcing the states to go along with it)…then it’s hard to not think that Prop 8’s passage results in a delay in getting the federal government to give the same rights to civil unions.
So that was Eckern’s fatal mistake. He could’ve donated his $1,000 towards a cause that would’ve promoted civil unions at the federal level, and thus preserved the status quo of hetero marriage and given federal rights to gay couples.
posted 11/12/08 at 9:01 pm #
I watched Kevin Johnson on Cobert. He said he was opposed to Prop 8.
Hank..I think this discussion here is about a road less traveled..like never.
I am not putting Christmas lights up this year…I am going “green” so instead I am putting those watt-wasting lights up two houses down, where the people had the Yes on 8 sign in their yard. (no)
posted 11/12/08 at 10:09 pm #
Glad to see Kel Munger’s post linked to, because it seems like a fact getting overlooked in this kerfluffle is that while most ardent No on 8-ers are ticked about Eckern’s donation to Prop 8, we are quite divided on whether a boycott is an appropriate response to it. For example, the Sac Gay & Lesbian Center has spoken clearly about how they don’t feel a boycott is appropriate. Many of us also recognize the difference between a donation from an individual and a donation from an organization. It’s very frustrating to see all marriage equality supporters described as boycott supporters!
That said, this is one of those situations where there are several imporant–and competing–interests at play.
There is an employee’s right to political speech & activity. (Incidentally, this right may be curtailed by some employers, as it is at many mainstream media outlets, where employees are not supposed to make political donations.)
There is other people’s right to react to that activity–such as the reaction of coworkers who feel it might be difficult to work with someone who opposes what they see as their civil rights, or a consumer’s right not to financially support an endeavor they find objectionable in some way. Consumers and creators have the right to control where their money goes.
And there is also an employer’s right (which varies by state and by contract) to protect its own financial interests when they are jeopardized by an employee’s actions.
It is hard to value one of these interests over the others; they each have strong merit. And who knows how this would have played out if Eckhern hadn’t resigned. The boycott talk might have died down, the theater might have dismissed him…who knows.
On a side note, does anyone find it just bizarre that Eckhern’s first reaction to the disclosure of his large Yes on 8 donation was to promise to donate an equal amount of money to an organization that will fight to overturn 8? Is he saying that he feels badly about supporting 8, or is he trying to buy his way out of the controversy? I just don’t know what to make of that gesture.
@HeyMeg:
Looks like you’re still struggling with the facts about the differences between marriages and civil unions. Do you plan on reading the resources provided to you here and in the previous thread?
posted 11/13/08 at 12:12 am #
a Bee editorial today makes the point I was sort of getting at
posted 11/13/08 at 6:54 am #
Blacklisting is something mormons can relate to, which is why it may be particularly effective as a response to the church’s involvement in Prop 8. They do it all the time, to businesses, and to people. When they do it to people, they call it “disfellowshipping.” When I was younger there was a family in our “ward” whose son was a star HS quarterback–he was being pursued by dozens of colleges with full scholarships. He ended up going to USC instead of BYU. The mormons completely blacklisted his family - they became pariahs and eventually stopped going to church.
I have no idea if Eckern is a mormon or not (despite the Utah and musical theater commonalities) but the mormon church is a spiteful organization so I don’t see a problem with them getting a taste of their own medicine in this case.
posted 11/13/08 at 8:19 am #
Homophobic.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
posted 11/13/08 at 8:45 am #
because he obviously has some sort of aversion to gays. otherwise, why behave so intolerantly as to not only support and vote for 8, but also donate to the prop campaign?
posted 11/13/08 at 8:50 am #
People are so upset about what Eckern did because political donations are similar, and in many ways, the same as political speech. So that $1000 donation is to the gay community not so much different than somebody shaking your hand one moment, then turning around and immediately furiously washing and disinfecting their hand as soon as possible afterward. Some of you don’t see homosexuality as being comparable to race/ethnicity, but to many of us it is. So that’s why the reaction to Eckern is akin to what would happen if a principal in a law firm was found to give money to an anti-Jewish organization. He may not being saying the hateful words himself, but his money is hiring others to say the hateful words for him.
posted 11/13/08 at 10:23 am #
What? All lawyers are Jewish? Who knew?
posted 11/13/08 at 10:25 am #
I have looked at the websites regarding rights affected by Prop 8. It seems two main interests are at stake: 1) A change in the treatment of gay couples by federal law and 2) An affirmation of gay partnerships as being the same as traditional marriages for the intrinsic value of having the two affirmed as identical. On the first point, as a matter of jurisprudence I think changes to federal law ought to be made by federal lawmakers, not California Supreme Court justices. On the second, I simply do not agree that gay partnerships are the same as traditional marriages. So when asked the question on a ballot “are these two things the same” I’m going to answer “no.” If I’m outnumbered at the polls so be it, but I am voting as to my personal opinion on that question just as everyone else is. While many might disagree, it’s a very long shot from hate speech or persecution.
posted 11/13/08 at 11:24 am #
“I simply do not agree that gay partnerships are the same as traditional marriages.”
What is the difference?
posted 11/13/08 at 12:08 pm #
If you are bored and curious to know who donated what to which side on Prop 8:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-metro-prop-8%2C0%2C2463893.htmlstory?appSession=49147401149443
posted 11/13/08 at 12:24 pm #
News 10 reports on Mormons leaving the church in protest:
http://www.news10.net/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=50384&catid=5
posted 11/13/08 at 12:25 pm #
Anonymous, let let introduce you to a little-known biological fact: a partnership of two women, or two men, can not reproduce within that partnership.
By opening the deffinition of “bigotry” to include behavoural characteristic, you are opening the door for “bigots” to exist everywhere. I am a proud bigot as to cannibals. You saying I shouldn’t be such a bigot? Not exactly what MLK had in mind, in his efforts to “eliminate bigotry” everywhere. Are you a “bigot” as to bigamy? Sometimes “discrimination” is good for society.
CSI Sac has some interesting points, but forgets that the basis of this society, which allowes people to RAISE such points in the first place, is a western Jeudeo-Christian society. Those founding principles, and the related basic values (value of family, personal liberties, social obligations, etc.), should not be ignored simply because one group of people engaged in a certain behavour wants to be able to do everything that everyone can do.
posted 11/13/08 at 12:33 pm #
And around and around we go.
posted 11/13/08 at 12:55 pm #
I have a question and I’m really hoping someone can answer it. Are those against gay marriage (for any reason although I can’t seem to get a reply that isn’t for ‘religious reasons’) actually of the belief that being gay is a behavior? It’s 2008 people. Are you honestly saying that with all we know in this day and age that you really believe that being gay is the same as say, biting your nails? Like a bad habit or some type of learned behavior? If you believe that people can stop being gay (just flip the switch and all) then I understand why you wouldn’t want them to have the same rights as you I guess.
posted 11/13/08 at 12:56 pm #
God in the Bible says that gay sex and eating bacon are both abhorrent sins.
But bacon tastes good, so people ignore that part of the Bible.
Let’s face it. No one is going to come right out and say that they oppose anything to do with gays because they think that gays are yucky, that gay butt sex is yucky, that they think that gays are going to butt rape their children and that they would love their gay son a little less than a straight son.
But, yes, people in the privacy of their homes and voting booths believe that, and there is very little that anyone can do to change their minds.
posted 11/13/08 at 1:16 pm #
Wow, that’s sad but I have to fully agree with you. These must be the same folks who kick their gay children out of the house. Coming full circle, I’d much rather having loving, committed, gay parents raising a child (and being married) than someone who would reject their own child for what they think is a behavior.
posted 11/13/08 at 1:21 pm #
I don’t accept the premise that a personal opinion is automatically disqualified when it arises from religious belief. I am entitled to rationalize from belief just as others are entitled to rationalize from unbelief. I have not walked in to my neighbor’s house and told him “you must end your gay relationship.” I have answered a question in a poll, namely “do you think these two things are the same?” I do not. I believe that the institution of marriage is one created by God based on His purposes and qualifications whereas the institution of gay partnership is one created by humanity based on its attractions and feelings. Would I presume to force a gay person into a straight marriage or some such absurdity? Certainly not. But when polled on the question as I was when voting on Prop 8, I voted my opinion. I do not accept the argument that I have a duty to silence that opinion solely because that it relates to a belief about God.
posted 11/13/08 at 1:44 pm #
Dear HeyMeg,
You state: “I observe that a committed partnership between two men or two women is different than a traditional marriage.” Please clarify what you mean by “traditional marriage.” (and to whom does your definition apply? Only Euro-Americans?)By “traditional marriage,” do you mean:
1. A partnership between a male and female for the sole purpose to reproduce?
2. A legal contract between a male and female, as acknowledged by the State?
3. A sacrament with god?
4. A union of two people for love?
5. A union of two people for convenience (financial benefits, pregnancy, companionship, etc.)?
6. A situation in which a daughter is seen as a father’s “property” to be “given away” to a husband, which then turns this woman into the husband’s “property”?
7. If a man and woman marry but never bare a child, is this a “traditional marriage”?
8. If a man and woman are married for a second time, does this second marriage constitute “traditional marriage” or does the previous divorce tarnish this designation?
9. Is marriage a commitment by (any) two people who vow to love and honor one another until death parts them?
10. If a marriage between a man and woman ends in divorce, while they were married, does that still constitute “traditional?”
posted 11/13/08 at 1:47 pm #
Yes Plumwin- The Yes on 8 crowd wants their behavour to be ratified by the govt as the same as a traditional m/f marriage. The problem is that then other behavours (adults, consenting, etc.) will also then have to be similarly ratified: bigamy, cannibalism, etc., since you also then lose the ability to have a clear line on who can and can not be married/made into a sandwich. Plus, given lessons from the past, no one belives for an instant, that “ok- any two people can now get married” would be the last proposed change to marriage.
Mmmm… Bacon…
posted 11/13/08 at 1:48 pm #
And for the record there is absolutely nothing about homosexual relationships that personally offends or grosses me out. That’s an easy retort, Stickie and Plumwin, but I assure you as the authority on my personal feelings that you are simply incorrect in my case. It might be hard to understand that, but in my case I simply see it as one subject upon which I may not see things God’s way. There is a list of other such subjects. Newsflash: I am not God.
posted 11/13/08 at 1:50 pm #
Seen, correct me if I’m misinterpreting. I think the argument you are making is that our culture already includes (or has included) many relationships under the banner of marriage that ought not be included. (For example a marriage model in which a woman is treated as chattel). I agree. But my belief that God does not ordain certain marriage models which are valued by our culture does not encourage me to add others to the list. To answer your question, my belief is that marriage is intended to be a lifetime commitment between one man and one woman for the purpose of glorifying God in whatever way He directs that lifetime relationship. Again, it’s not that I’m walking into other peoples’ homes investigating how closely they are following God’s personal calling in their lives and it’s not entirely about sex. It’s that a question came up on the ballot: do you think xyz equals marriage and I answered my opinion based on my view of reality, a view that includes certain beliefs about God. I don’t think that’s an invalid way of approaching the question, although many others may disagree.
posted 11/13/08 at 1:58 pm #
Yes, a vote for Prop 8 is really a vote against legalized cannibalism.
posted 11/13/08 at 2:02 pm #
Actually, HeyMeg, that’s not the argument that I am making. I am simply asking for clarification on your defintion of “traditional marriage.” If I am making any argument at all, it is that there are many different ways to define “traditional marriage” in our society. If I want it to mean “a loving union between two men or two women,” then, based on your logic, it can mean that, as well.
posted 11/13/08 at 2:06 pm #
Meg, your beliefs are your beliefs and you have every right to them, and I appreciate your input on this whole subject.
Here is my problem: Homosexuals are not asking for your God, or any other God(s) to ratify their union. They are asking the State of California to ratify their union. The majority of voters in California did not choose to make that distinction.
I’m one of those people who very strongly believes that certain things should never be given to the voters as an option, as we do not live in a direct democracy but a representative democracy with specifically delineated powers given to different branches of government.
So, here is how this is going to play out.
CA Supreme Court overturns Prop 8.
Recall effort of 4 California Supreme Court Justices (remember Rose Bird?)
2010 - More ballot box nonsense and social upheaval!
Meanwhile - Some gay couple somewhere is going to sue over having their rights violated. The CA 9th will uphold, and it will go to the US Supreme Court. By then, Obama will have appointed two justices to replace Stevens and Ginsburg, so who knows how that will play out. Kennedy will swing to uphold the gay rights side, that is for sure.
posted 11/13/08 at 2:14 pm #
Seen, I see what you are saying and I agree - culturally the issue will ultimately be defined based on popular opinion. As I said, if I’m outnumbered at the polls then so be it. But I don’t think I should have to surrender my personal opinion and vote differently just because my opinion relates to a religious viewpoint, as others have suggested ought be done.
posted 11/13/08 at 2:14 pm #
Can we please stop discussing cannibalism and bacon in the same thread?
posted 11/13/08 at 2:16 pm #
The slipperiest slopes are covered in bacon grease!
posted 11/13/08 at 2:24 pm #
Stickie: I can’t see a recall effort on the CA Supremes gathering much steam, but I don’t know jack about nothing. I do think that Ginsburg will need to be replaced after she is eaten by Scalia. Dammit now I can’t stop thinking about the long pig.
posted 11/13/08 at 2:27 pm #
Heymeg, I obviously disagree with you on the issue at hand but you should NOT have to surrender your personal opinion for anyone! You are so right. I didn’t mean to cram my views down your throat and do appreciate your comments as well.
posted 11/13/08 at 3:21 pm #
HeyMeg, I agree with your definition of marriage 100%. I just don’t believe that my personal spiritual beliefs should possibly, even for a SECOND, be part of law, especially not if they hurt other people. I’m not nearly selfish enough to believe that my own opinion should define other folks’ lives. And I’m very much American in that on top of that I don’t feel that mixing religion and government is a good idea for anyone - the end result is always that books burn, and after that people start burning. So I figured it was safer for the long-term health of Californians if I voted NO.
posted 11/13/08 at 4:36 pm #
@HeyMeg
But civil marriage is not religious marriage.
Why should religious criteria be used to set the parameters of a civil institution? Especially an institution of a government that is supposed to provide equal rights (not “separate but equal”) to the members of a religiously pluralistic society.
Do what you want in your church–but church rules should not replace the government’s.
Besides, I think we’re discussing the question bass-ackwards anyway.
Shouldn’t the burden be on those who do NOT want civil marriage equality to prove why it’s necessary to deny rights to a group of people?
Past discriminatory practice aside, I think placing the burden on excluded groups to prove that they should have the same rights as others is just wrong, ethically AND logically.
@CoolDMZ:
Thing is, there wasn’t any systematic call for a boycott of STC, and it’s not at all clear that there ever would have been.
Some individuals (mostly artists who had worked with STC) loudly recommended a boycott. But they did so as individuals.
No major LGBT organization called for a boycott, and many spoke out against it.
But to read the reports, and your posts, and the Bee Op-Ed, you wouldn’t know that. You’d think the “gay community” was rallying around a boycott as a cause. And it just wasn’t so.
posted 11/13/08 at 10:20 pm #
Vegadelic: You’ve struck on something important, I think. Look at both the stories about the Eckern boycott and the story Stickie linked to about Mormons leaving the church. We are never given any names or hard numbers about how many people are in these group movements. The Mormon article mentions numbers gathered by a blogger from comments on his website. No offense to…myself and all of you, but that’s not newsgathering. The Eckern thing references antigayblacklist.com and other websites, so calling it a boycott is probably the doing of all the mainstream media reports, a more precise description would have been that several nutjob groups demanded that Eckern be blacklisted. In either case you’re right, and I think I have acknowledged LGBT groups that are taking a more mainstream approach to this situation. I think I personally approached that aspect rather fairly. Excellent points though!
posted 11/14/08 at 9:44 am #
CoolDMZ–It would be fantastic if you wrote an Op-Ed–perhaps for the Bee?–on this very point (how reporters are too often using the specific writings of folks on blogs to generale to the population at large).
From your role at Sac Rag, you’re in a great position to point out how troubling this tendency is in the media. And you will have written half your op-ed in this comments thread! Seriously, think about it!
posted 11/14/08 at 10:12 am #
You pro-8 people are aware that there is nothing in prop 8 that prevents a church from performing a same-sex religious marriage, right? It’s only about the civil aspects of marriage.
The yes on 8 side sent letters to businesses that donated to no on 8, threatening a boycott. They are reaping what they have sown. And the Mormon church has changed their own definition of marriage, so their claim of support for “traditional” marriage is bogus.
As a subscriber and donor to California Musical Theatre, I let CMT know that I was not happy about the donation, but I did not say that Scott Eckern should resign, and cited my own donations to activist causes as a reason - I would not like it if people stopped patronizing my employer because I donated to No on 8.
posted 11/14/08 at 10:16 am #
Vegadelic,
That is absolutely correct and thanks for saying it. Many gays and lesbians didn’t want him to resign. He has a right to give money to causes he believes in.
I plan on going to the protest on Saturday to support gays but I won’t be carrying any hateful signs or getting into ugly arguments with people who disagree with my point of view. My husband wants to join me and he doesn’t care who knows he voted No on 8.
posted 11/14/08 at 10:41 am #
Vegadelic: It’s a great topic, and I think all of us here will definitely be on the lookout for it. Op-ed for the Bee, eh? I wonder if they’d have me.
posted 11/14/08 at 2:40 pm #
Before CoolDMZ writes an editorial, he should probably do a little more research about the topic than the shooting from the hip he’s done so far. He’s described the movement against Eckern as a result of “several nutjob groups” when according to media reports, one of the main instigators of the boycott is Marc Shaiman, who is a giant in the theater and general entertainment industry. How much more mainstream can you get than an Emmy winner and 5-time Oscar nominee? The ledes I’ve seen so far (including SacRag’s) has been that it was gay and lesbian artists who were angry, and this is what pressured Eckern to resign. It’s your own special jump to conclusion that the entire GLBT community is the one calling for his head.
posted 11/14/08 at 6:44 pm #
Yeah I could do a little more research, I guess, but I think instead I’ll just bang this out tomorrow morning and send it in, so open your papers to see my Op-Ed on Monday morning you guys!!!!!!!
Seriously, have a great weekend Dan. You rock.
posted 11/14/08 at 8:27 pm #
Leave a comment