The first gay marriages in Connecticut were performed yesterday. This and the abortion battlegrounds that came out pro-choice are the good news in the recent so-called culture wars. But extremely disheartening news came out of November 4th as California’s anti-gay-marriage and anti-gay-rights Proposition 8 and a law in Arkansas banning people cohabiting outside of marriage from adopting or acting as foster parents were passed.
As one of my favorites, Dan Savage, writes in the New York Times this week, these anti-gay laws are distinctly anti-family:
That state’s Proposed Initiative Act No. 1, approved by nearly 57 percent of voters last week, bans people who are “cohabitating outside a valid marriage†from serving as foster parents or adopting children. While the measure bans both gay and straight members of cohabitating couples as foster or adoptive parents, the Arkansas Family Council wrote it expressly to thwart “the gay agenda.†Right now, there are 3,700 other children across Arkansas in state custody; 1,000 of them are available for adoption. The overwhelming majority of these children have been abused, neglected or abandoned by their heterosexual parents.
Even before the law passed, the state estimated that it had only about a quarter of the foster parents it needed. Beginning on Jan. 1, a grandmother in Arkansas cohabitating with her opposite-sex partner because marrying might reduce their pension benefits is barred from taking in her own grandchild; a gay man living with his male partner cannot adopt his deceased sister’s children.
Activists for gay rights are now organizing protests at Mormon Churches, which provided much of the funding for Proposition 8’s campaign, and are boycotting those businesses and some individuals who financially supported Prop 8. Just recently, Scott Eckern, the artistic director of California Musical Theater, resigned from his position after coming under fire. Marc Shaiman, Tony-award winning composer for Hairspray, was one of those who said he would no longer allow his work to be performed at Eckern’s theater.
Eckern has expressed surprise and claims that he is “deeply saddened that my personal beliefs and convictions have offended others.†But why should he be surprised and why should he paint his convictions as merely “personal”? He contributed money to a political campaign whose aim it was to interfere in the personal lives of his fellow citizens and many colleagues. Why should he be surprised that some of these colleagues themselves took it personally that he helped mandate the ways in which they are, and are not, allowed to recognize their love for their partners?
Comments
Personal, Pro-Family Gay Marriage | Pelican Project Pro-Life — November 13, 2008
[...] View original here: Personal, Pro-Family Gay Marriage [...]
Bob Lamm — November 14, 2008
I was out on the streets of New York only two nights ago to join the outrage over the passage of Proposition 8. Nevertheless, Kristen, I find your view of Scott Eckern's (obviously forced) resignation troubling.
Eckern's statement is certainly naive and his support of Prop 8 can't fairly be viewed as simply "personal." He took a stand against equal rights for same-sex couples who wish to marry.
If Mark Shaiman or anyone else decided to spit in Eckern's face, I'd have no problem with that. But forcing him out of his job is a different matter, especially for those of us who well remember how the McCarthyite blacklist destroyed the lives of many theater artists and others working in the entertainment industry.
No one complained about anything Eckern did on the job. Once you say that his odious views about Prop 8 are justification for forcing him out, where does that stop?
Should Eckern not be allowed to work in any theater in the U.S.? Should he not be allowed to teach theater in high schools or colleges? What about people who gave money to McCain and Palin? Many of us feel that they took a political stand against women's rights, including the right to a legal abortion. Many feel that the McCain/Palin campaign was racist in its treatment of Barack Obama as well as anyone who is or is even rumored to be a Muslim. Is what Scott Eckern did so much worse than giving money to McCain and Palin? What about a campaign to force all McCain/Palin supporters out of theater jobs? And teaching jobs. And any jobs. And let's add in anyone to has made a financial contribution to any anti-choice organization or any anti-choice candidate.
When you start targeting people in this way, Kristen, where do you draw the line?
And one final question. Now that Scott Eckern has lost his job, do you believe that the likelihood of overturning Proposition 8 is now greater?
I am unequivocally in favor of same-sex marital rights. I find Scott Eckern's views unfortunate and abhorrent. I protested outside the Mormon Church in New York and I have no problem with protests against any organization, religious or not, that opposes full legal rights for gay men and lesbians. But I believe that targeting individuals simply for their terrible beliefs and their terrible political contributions is dangerous and is NOT the best way to move toward a better society where everyone's rights are respected.
gwp_admin — November 14, 2008
Bob,
I am in absolute agreement with you and do not support black-listing of any sort. Both politically non-viable and a practice whose abhorrent repercussions can be seen too easily in recent American history, this is clearly not the way forward for any group attempting to effect change or fight for their rights.
I should note a few things. First, the Times article is unclear in explaining exactly under what circumstances Eckern resigned. All we know is that Shaiman refused to have his work performed at the theatre and that "under fire" Eckern resigned. I absolutely do not think he should have been fired or lost his job because of a political statement. However, the on the ground facts may be quite different. If he resigned because he was fast losing both composers and audience members, then it's a different matter. Shaiman has the right to refuse to allow his work to be performed at Eckern's venue and others have the right to decide not to attend performances at the theater.
My comment, however, was really not intended to broach this issue (though I should have stated my opposition to blacklisting unequivocally) but to point out my surprise that Eckern, colleague to many whose right to marry has been taken away, should be surprised that they took his public support of it personally and may now find it difficult to work with him. Should Larry Summers have resigned from Harvard's presidency because of his comments on women's innate scientific abilities and other impolitic moments? It's a valid question. However, a number of his faculty felt they could no longer work with him.
I think Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/the-dumbest-man.html) sums up these ambiguities best:
"I should clarify. I don't think anyone should lose their job, as Eckern has, over this. I despise the idea of blacklists of any kind.
My point is simply that this is not just a political disagreement. Imagine a white jazz musician sending money in the 1950s to support bans on miscegenation. That is his right. But how is an African-American supposed to play a set with such a person? It's not easy.
This goes both ways, of course. Some of the generalizations by gays about Mormons have been prejudicial; and attacks on people of faith who are sincere about this are misplaced. We need to be able to live civilly with one another. We need to argue this on the basis of reason, not emotion. But when you have done that for twenty years, as I have, and realize that reason doesn't really matter to your opponents, what then? Try living with people who think of you as "intrinsically disordered" and want to have the constitution amended to ensure that that stigma is enforced every day. How would you feel?
I think I'm not the only one who's had enough. Live and let live - under equal protection of the laws. Not that hard. And yet far too hard for some."
Bob Lamm — November 14, 2008
Thanks, Kristen, for all that you wrote, which I completely agree with.
It is very difficult to decide where to draw these kinds of lines. But here's something I consider quite relevant. Eckern had worked with that Sacramento theater company for 25 years. He'd been artistic director since 2002. Undoubtedly he'd worked with many openly gay and lesbian theater professionals and others who were somewhat closeted. I've read many news stories and have not seen the slightest indication that Eckern had been homophobic, callous, or unprofessional in his dealings with anyone in the company.
I know that the passage of Proposition 8 has been painful, frightening, and infuriating for friends of mine in California and elsewhere. I find it sickening that people would vote as they did. I believe that opponents of Prop 8 have every right to be upset with Eckern and any other supporter of ugly measure and to express their feelings strongly. Nevertheless, in this case, I believe a line has been crossed that should not have been crossed.
Sam — March 14, 2009
The bottom line here is that everyone hates a hypocrite. Eckern is just that--made even more obvious by his hollow "apology" for his actions hurting people--note he never apologizes for what he did, only that it hurt people--and ultimately, himself.
Karma is a swift executioner.
This reminds me of an old Italian saying: Don't shit where you eat.
gianmarco lorezi shop — May 21, 2011
Hello just wanted to give you a quick heads up and let you know a few of the pictures aren't loading correctly. I'm not sure why but I think its a linking issue. I've tried it in two different internet browsers and both show the same outcome.