Thursday, November 13, 2008

The Scott Eckern Aftermath; or, Thank You for the Buzz, Sacramento Bee

It seems there's no let-up in the hate email I'm receiving from the goosestepping wingnuts who believe fighting for gay rights is a matter of hatred -- neatly deflecting the real hatred that oozes from their pores.

And again, just to be clear: If you send me anonymous comments, I will reject them. Each and everey single bloody one of them. You're cowards for not putting your name on what you write. I'd rather -- to quote your favorite American, George W. Bush -- smoke you out of your caves and your holes and have you identified by name. But no, you sit, over your computer, probably porn surfing, railing against all that fails to comport with your faith-based jihad.

One person civil enough to put her name out there is Kellie Randle, who I understand is in public relations. She has created a blog devoted to defending Scott Eckern's right to spend his money in defense of mortally wounding gay rights, or something like that. Actually, I'm glad Scott Eckern has his defenders. And I'm glad there are people out there deluded enough to rise in gales of unalloyed ecstasy in celebration of what he did. Oh--

Let's just be clear, once and for all, about what Eckern did and what exactly is so abhorrent here. Eckern spent $1,000 in support of Proposition 8. Then, when public records brought that fact to light, he said he didn't understand what the proposition was all about. So I, very simply, posted the text of the proposition, which is written in such plain, simple, basic English that if Eckern did not understand it, of what use is he to the musical theatre? Then the right-wing fanatics started railing against the fact that I called him a slime for supporting the proposition. Now, I didn't say Eckern didn't have a right to support the proposition, and I didn't say he didn't have a right to spend his money on it. Of course he had those rights. But why, though, do I not have the right to articulate what I think about it, or what I think of him for doing so? Why is it that the zealots of the right think that any kind of rights at all belong wholly to them?

But there's more here, too. The issue is that Eckern spent the $1,000 and represented himself in doing so as artistic director of California Music Theatre. So, for all appearance's sake as well as in practice, Eckern chose to present that California Music Theatre endorsed Proposition 8. Are any of the right-wing wackos out there unfamiliar with the laws against nonprofits getting involved in political advocacy? No, of course they wouldn't -- these are the same twerps who believe it's all right and well and good for churches to get involved in partisan politics.


And if you want that changed, oh, baby, you just go forth and fight for it. We'll fight you and fight you to preserve the separation of church and state in my America forever. You'll never stop us from fighting for that -- and winning. For that's America. That's the real America. That's sacred.

Meanwhile, please allow me to give a shout-out to the Sacramento Bee for mentioning The Clyde Fitch Report in its coverage of this mess. But one nitpick: Marcus Crowder, who wrote the piece, never contacted me. What's up with that?

Finally, let me please thank Scott Eckern. My blog traffic has absolutely gone through the roof since all this began. I couldn't have asked for more attention, quite frankly. I just wish it hadn't been generated by something so personal and inscrutable as faith -- faith that, yes, hurt other people tremendously. How sad, too, how it ended for you, as I didn't recommend that you resign and didn't recommended that your theatre be boycotted. However, rest assured that the LGBT community, far from engaging in McCarthy witchhunt, is giving the religious right a taste of its own bitter, divisive medicine. How much nicer would our nation be if we could all be a little more tolerant of our fellow man? Pity you people will never, ever know.

Sphere: Related Content


Anonymous said...

Nobody forced Eckern to resign; but he did anyway.

Would these right wing nutjobs still be supporting him if the $1000 had gone toward banning inter-racial marriage? Or in support of lowering the consent age of marriage to 10?

Oh - never mind. Brigham Young had 28 wives; LGBTQ people just want the right to marry ONE.

This country is filled with closed-minded hypocrites. Eckern is one of many. He stabbed his workforce in the back by supporting this hateful cause financially (instead of in the privacy of a voting booth) and karma has now come back to get him.

Zev Valancy said...

I wish I could feel happy about the public shaming and eventual resignation of someone who did something so repugnant. While there is no excuse for what he did, I can't help but feel that it's a shame that things on both sides were so ugly. Leonard's exactly right that it's bitter and divisive, and I can't feel any joy when it grows. Maybe some day we'll be able to have a discussion about this without things getting so nasty and brutal. The way things are now sure isn't working.