ADDENDUM: AS OF TODAY I WON'T BE PUBLISHING ANY FURTHER ANONYMOUS COMMENTS ON THE SCOTT ECKERN MATTER. Now, on with the post:
I love when people post anonymous comments on blogs, especially when they're commenting on something controversial and they haven't the balls to actually put their names beside their ideas. Case in point would be all the comments on my two previous Scott Eckern posts. So here, even though you don't deserve it and even though the policy on this blog is not to publish anonymous comments, are some responses:
In response to...
What's worse--that Eckern contributed money to this vile campaign or that he now purports not to have genuinely understood the implications of such an action? That's a troubling double-dose of ignorance, now isn't it?I agree completely. The fact is, heterosexuals, with their 50% divorce rate, are hardly good stewards of the institution of marriage. And when you factor in the cheating that goes on and all the "bi-curious" married men on networking sites and adam4adam and manhunt and whatever, it's all the more unseemly for Eckern and his ilk to do what they did or to issue non-apology apologies. For all I know, Eckern is one of those closeted guys himself. I don't know. And also, this is not about Eckern's right to a political point of view. It is about the right of everyone else to air what they think of it. Eckern can believe the world is flat for all I care. That's his right as an American. It's also my right to say that he supported with his $1,000 the hate-filled agenda of the ultra-far-right and he is, therefore, partly responsible for the evil that infects my nation.
He is absolutely entitled to his political point of view, and he must also live with the consequences of that. I live in Massachusetts, where marriage equality has been a matter of law for several years now, with no proof whatsoever that
traditional marriage has been damaged in any way whatsoever.
In response to:
In the 1950's there were screenwriters, directors and producers blacklisted - it was called the McCarthy era. What you are supporting is no different. A man exercised his right to vote. What makes you any less despicable than those who blacklisted others before for having a different opinion. Everyone has the right to vote their own choice. 5.6 million people voted for Prop 8 but you joined hatemongers today who conducted a witch hunt. You, Mr. Fitch, are sponsoring un-American tactics no different than persecuting a man for his skin color or religious beliefs or his politics.The bottom line is whether you voted Yes or NO - everyone should have that privilege without persecution and harassment and fear of losing their job. Heil Fitch. Someone forgot to tell me you were made God.Yes, a man exercised his right to vote. And to spend his money the way he sees fit. And I am exercising, along with countless millions of Americans, the right to declare Scott Eckern a twit and a hate-monger and an imbecile. This isn't blacklisting. This is everyone enjoying their First Amendment rights. As you would have it, such rights would apply to Eckern and to no one else. Thanks for the Hitler analogy, by the way. Nice thing to say to a Jew.
In response to:
As made clear in the above post, what irritates is NOT his vote but his financial support of the measure. His money went into ads that were misleading and FULL of fear-based tactics. Mr. Eckern admits that he was misinformed about the issue: a successful product of the Yes On 8 campaign.Who the hell cares whether the ad were misleading or if the campaign was full of fear-based tactics. The actual text of Proposition 8, which you can read for yourself here if you weren't so busy defending Eckern's right to propogate hatred and intolerance, states it pretty bloody clearly:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.What on earth is unclear about this? How can Eckern say he misunderstood? If he doesn't understand that, how can he program Avenue Q into his season? Give me a break, Mary.
Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
In response to:
I applaud Mr. Eckern for his openness to working with, hiring, and accepting those with homosexual lifestyles while still holding true to his moral and political beliefs.There is nothing bigoted and hateful about rising up and speaking out and publicly shaming those who bathe themselves in the politics of bigotry and hatred. Meanwhile, you don't even have the courage to put your name in the comment. How about you show yourself, hm? Be open about who you are and what you believe? I'd have a lot more respect for you then. Coward.
It is bigoted and hateful to target those Mormons. They were a small portion of the millions who voted in favor of proposition 8. How wrong of people to do that. You wouldn't dare target african-americans, or their churches even when 70% of those who voted were in favor of proposition 8.
Don't jump on the bandwagon.
In response to:
Support Scott Eckern's First Amendment Freedom said...Just want God wants: another self-promoting pig.
This whole campaign against Scott is the height of hypocrisy. For those who want to know the truth about Scott Eckern visit supportscotteckern.blogspot.com.
In response to:
What is wrong with you people? Who are the ones filled with hate? Lobby your opinions fine. Lobby your beliefs fine. But to protest people who have expressed their right to believe something (even if it's wrong) and to destroy their livelihood and their homes?? This blog alone, with the animosity filled postings, makes me want to change my vote. I cannot believe that this blog and this community can breed such hate as you sometimes encounter in your own lives. You are actively condemning an entire religion because some of their members made donations and expressed their opinion. That is free speech. You are attempting to get this man fired for something he believes. Do you think that this man would have fought to get you fired from your job for donating money to gay rights actions or for being gay? I somehow doubt that. I think you seriously should reconsider your actions of "blacklisting" these people because they donated to a cause they thought was right. Gays in California have every right that spouses enjoy except 1; a word. A single word. And for it you are willing to condemn thousands of people for their beliefs because they stood up for something they believe in. I look in their eyes and I see conviction, In your eyes and I see hatred and anger. I don't believe as they do. But based on these actions, I'm almost willing to support them. Appalled in CaliforniaActually, Appalled, if you'd bothered to read what I wrote in the very first place you'd know better than to accuse me of attacking a whole religion. Indeed, I wrote: "According to the same blog, by the way, Eckern is "obviously" Mormon. Here's his bio, for those who want to have a look. I'm not sure the best thing to do is to attack one religion in this case. It is a question of personal morality and responsibility -- unless we know for sure that the Mormon Church told Eckern personally to donate $1,000, we should focus on the facts. A couple of URLs that I checked do confirm, by the way, that Eckern made this donation. The question now is whether anyone in the industry is going to make something out of this."
But frankly, I don't expect you to read, you reflexively antigay idiot. You're appalled at me? Well, I'm appalled at you. I'm appalled that you can walk the same sacred earth I walk and desecrate it so thoroughly with your massive hurling of intolerance. There's a word for you but it's impolite to use it outside a kennel.
In response to:
Or maybe the heart of the problem is that stereotyping and hatred have emerged within the LGBT movement and are reaching levels of hysteria toward the religiously inclined folks they have vilified.Once again, you nitwit, no one's free speech has been curtailed. The real question is why you are so sinful as to hijack your religion, assuming that one of its basic precepts of tolerance. At the end of the day, you're intolerant. You're no better than the people who lynched African Americans during the 19th and 20th centuries, you're no better than the Nazis who gassed six million of my fellow Jews. You're no better than the Pol Pots of the world with your faith and piety and belief and religion because you use those qualities, those belief, those hatreds, to ruin people's lives, to hurt your fellow man. You're disgusting. Sphere: Related Content
Kitty is right, this does have more to do with general civil liberties than gay rights.
Remember the Methodist church in New Jersey that lost their non-profit status for withholding one of the their buildings, a sanctuary, from the gay wedding requested for their site.
Remember the father in Massachusetts that spent the night in jail demanding his promised "opt out" rights for his kindergartner.
This is about freedom of speech and freedom to follow your religious conscience within the confines of your own church, and home.
Multiple precedent setting cases have occurred removing rights from those that exercise their conscience. Tolerance now can only be expected if your sexual orientation is at stake, not your religious beliefs.
If only religion were still considered a civil right and private citizens could still voice their opinion without fear. Scott Eckern has experienced something that should never have happened in our country.
One can only hope that some day the LGBT population will learn to tolerate freedom of speech and the constitutionally designed civil right of religion. I have never infringed on others rights to live their lives as they see fit, but please don't ask any church to condone and perform gay marraiges that violate the foundation of their beliefs. Give me a bill expanding civil union benefits and I will be first in line to pass it, as long as it doesn't curtail the freedom of speech of others.
An old saying from the WWII era goes something like this, "Your right to move your fist ends where my nose begins." Please stop swinging your political fists. Religious folks didn't start this fight...we are defending our God-given right to worship.