Theater Director Quits Amid Gay-Rights Anger

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The artistic director at California's largest nonprofit musical theater company resigned Wednesday amid protests over his donation to a campaign to ban gay marriage in the state.

Scott Eckern stepped down from his job at the California Musical Theater in Sacramento after some gay activists called for a theater boycott.

He said he is leaving "after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatergoing and creative community."

Eckern said he "chose to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved" but had no idea his contribution would generate such controversy. He said his sister is a lesbian in a domestic partnership, which he understands to carry the same legal rights as marriage.

The boycott calls _ led by artists including "Hairspray" composer Marc Shaiman _ began after activists learned Eckern contributed $1,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign. Last week, voters approved Proposition 8, which changes the constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Lisa West, regional spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said Eckern is a member "in very good standing" and the Mormon church supports his decision to resign.

Fred Karger, the founder of Californians Against Hate, which was created to publicize donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, said he was not involved in the theater boycott effort and was saddened that Eckern resigned.

"That's not good news, but there's going to be a lot of fallout from this (gay marriage ban)," Karger said. "Of course, a lot of lives were ruined on the other side."

He said his Web site has received thousands of visits from those tracking Yes on 8 contributors.

Ron Prentice, chairman of the Yes on 8 campaign, issued a statement criticizing gay marriage supporters who "cherish tolerance and civil rights (but) are unabashedly trampling on the rights of others."

The theater company, Sacramento's oldest arts organization, said it is not involved in political issues but doesn't interfere with employees' rights to express their views. The company issued a statement thanking Eckern for his 25 years of service.

Eckern was the company's chief operating officer and its artistic director since 2002. The company produces Sacramento's annual Music Circus and plays at Broadway Sacramento and the newly opened Cosmopolitan Cabaret.

Comments

[MarkInEugene]

You play gutter politics; you get dirty. You contribute to oppression; the oppressed are not going to be nice. I mean, what did Eckern expect? It would have cost him NOTHING to just leave it alone and let people express their love in their own way in their personal lives that should not be the business of the state or some antiquated religion.

This just makes puke. These people have put forth a proposition that doesn't do anything whatsoever FOR them; all it does is oppress a minority population that they hate....th­at's it!

Since when has silence ever helped the oppressed? Since when has civility every ever stopped oppression? What the Prop 8 sponsors perpetrated on a select group of American taxpaying citizens is disgusting, undemocratic, antediluvian, fear based hate-monge­ring....pe­riod!

[Mulvaney]

I was against Prop 8. I donated to the No on 8 campaign, spoke to people about the initiative, and was proud to display a sign in front of my house. I understand the frustration, the hurt, and the disappointment. We should all feel that way when we live in a state where the majority can vote away a civil right.

But I would not want to have to leave my job after 25 years because of any donation I made, one way or the other.

Joe Hill taught us not to mourn, but to organize. I am not sure that what happened to Mr Eckern is the best way to organize those who might eventually support same-sex marriage, or to create the social backdrop that would help convince the California Court to strike down the initiative.

[jalowe1957]

It doesn't take much to be marginalized and sent off to the wilderness like the proverbial scapegoat.

[Eric8869]

like gays have been since the beginning of time

[nibblybits]

Good. If he wants to support discrimination, then he should feel the repercussions. Hope he never works again and has to be supported by his bigoted church.

[Rockwell]

Lesbian sister and works in Muscial Theater (aka gay catnip). And yet he thinks its ok to use the government to force gays into second class status.

Good luck finding work, buttmunch.

[Eric8869]

actually he's good at buttmunch

[sheputstheLinPAIN]

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[johnnynyc]

How many of you donated to this bigot's campaign:

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm

I want to out you all and boycott your place of employmen

[Eric8869]

I voted FOR Obama because he was truthful about this from the beginning.

I couldn't trust Hillary not to stab us in the back. (Like her husband did 5 times)

However not ONE Republican even bothered showing up during the primaries to talk about gay issues. The Republicans turn their backs on us time and time again.

Barack Obama has mentioned gay people in all his important speeches from his DNC speech that made him famous to his acceptance speech in grant park.

Does it make me unhappy he's against gay marriage..­...yes. I support Obama and i'm waiting to see how he fares on gay issues. Until then I'm supporting him.

[johnnynyc]

But the fact of the matter is he would have voted against this measure because of his religious beliefs. That's how many people feel about it too.

Obama believes marriage is a sanctified (declared holy) relationship. That's not a radical idea.

Face it, the government is as secular institution and can't sanctify anything.

That's why the government needs to get out of the marriage business.

No religious marriages should be recognized. Every adult, hetero- or homosexual who wants to legalize their relationship gets a contract from the government.

Those who want a religious ceremony can go have one if their religion permits it.

[johnnynyc]

That obviously should have read Obama would have voted for the measure because of his religious beliefs.

[sepia830]

Just like you have the right to be gay, someone else has the right based on religious reasons not to support gay marriage. Obama is not saying that you should not have basic rights, just that marriage is a sared instiution under God.

Boycott as many places of employment as you like, but you will not change most people's minds. If anything you will somehow justify their feelings.

[diablorobotico]

I don't care what anyone believes, I only care that the law reflects the Constitution.

[nibblybits]

Not supporting gay marriage is not the same as writing into a state constitution the explicit denial of equal rights to fellow tax paying citizens. That's the difference. Even if you are against or ambivalent about gay marriage, the only rational conscionable vote is/was No on Prop 8.

[diablorobotico]

Barack Obama was and is against Prop 8 and he's for equal rights for LGBT citizens.

He's also a politician who needed to get elected. I don't believe he's against marriage equality, but I know he had to say he was. I expect that he'll have a "change of heart" sometime near the end of his second term.

But since this conversation is about Prop 8, Obama was on the side of marriage equality in being against Prop 8. So no need to boycott any of us. But thanks for your support!

[johnnynyc]

You can't project your politics on someone who is on the record clearly disagreeing with you.

"I don't believe he's against marriage equality, but I know he had to say he was. I expect that he'll have a "change of heart" sometime near the end of his second term."

That's sheer speculation.

Obama: "...I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

End of story, notwithstanding your beliefs to the contrary .

[zest]

He didn't get fired; he quit. Why did he quit; he only knows. Musical theater must be a tough assignment for a Mormon.

[newpotusplease]

Exactly, reverse discrimination does exist.

If you watch some of the programs on Bravo or gaytv.com you quickly see how some of the programming is highly intolerant of women, or portrays women in these completely vapid roles
and the programming sometimes holds utter contempt for the religious and sometimes children.

then they want voters to vote no on 8 and one is left to wonder "with friends like these..."

[diablorobotico]

Wow, I want to watch your version of Bravo or gaytv.com! They sound exciting!

However, they also have nothing to do with the fact that all people are equal. I wouldn't suggest forming your worldview based on tv shows any more than you should base it on what you read in Internet comments sections.

[Eric8869]

Reverse discrimination? What are YOU talking about?

He contributed to something that took rights away from people and they voiced their displeasure. It's freedom of speech on both sides.

Women are portrayed in vapid roles in lots of society. Don't blame the gays.

We don't create stars like Kim Kardashian or Pam Anderson - thats what straight men like to see.

Go picket Maxim magazine and leave your homophobia out of it.

[nibblybits]

This controversy has already changed my views towards the Mormon Church. If the leaders want to fund discrimination and admonish all their members to work for the ban, then they have opened themselves up to the backlash.

BTW, I'm straight.

[newpotusplease]

there is no difference between the talibangelicals

and the talibangeligays

McCarthyism is McCarthyism

this man had a right to vote how he wanted to, he had a right to donate how he wanted to
and he had a right to work in a job that he performed well in and he had a right to be free from being harrassed about his voting record as a private citizen.

I hope the yes on 8 people use him as an example of what happens when you are on the wrong side of the far left- that will be very interesting indeed!

[diablorobotico]

Why does he get all the rights -- including the right to deny other human beings their rights -- but nobody has the right to protest him?

I had the right to get married. But that was last week. If he didn't want to be called out on his bigotry, then he shouldn't have made a public declaration of it.

I do agree with you in hoping the Yes on 8 people get the message, both loud and clear. This incident shows us that they already are.

[diamondgirl9]

He didn't .He was tracked on a web site that listed the people who donated to pass Prop 8.

[newpotusplease]

it seems in your response that you do not fully understand "the middle, the center"

it seems you think that they are "getting the message"- meaning that they will cower and bend

I believe they are "getting the message" and they are going to be even more surreptitious and it will not be helpful to No on 8 efforts in the long run, though perhaps satisfying in the moment.

[newpotusplease]

also, I believe actress Susan Egan said she wanted to "out him" -- not just protest or boycott or debate him-- she said she wanted to "out him"

is that acceptable - to "out" people?

[diamondgirl9]

It's also a tactic used by the right.

[Eric8869]

I love how the conservatives and religious people spend 100% of their time attacking gay people and their families but cry victim when gay people fight back.

You created this - now live with the backlash. And there will be one

[Cybersquirt]

It is not McCarthyism to boycott a business you don't want to promote. It's called activism.

I hope the Yes on 8 people use this a food for though when the try to legislate discrimination again.

[nibblybits]

He has every right to express his opinion and contribute as he sees fit....and he did. Now others are exercising their freedom of speech to respond. He discriminates and now he's complaining that he's being discriminated against? The irony. He doesn't know what discrimination is.

[humbop]

The guy has a right to give money to any cause he wants. He shouldn't have to resign because of it. I am very liberal. I'm against Prop 8. It is unconstitutional. But I am more against the oppression of an individual's right to be heard, no matter what the issue. Why must we all act like babies? You spend your money and vote the way you want; let him spend his money and vote the way he wants. Agree to disagree. Is that so hard? How can you be against discrimination when it aligns with your beliefs, yet discriminate when it doesn't. I'm sick of all this hypocrisy: from the Right and the Left.

Getting this guy fired doesn't change anything, but it tears at the fabric of our society. I'd like to see some gay people and Prop 8 opponents do the right thing and speak up for this guy. There IS a higher road to take. And there is a higher goal than gay marriage: the return of civilized discourse in America.

[sdskelton03]

I couldn't agree with you any more.

It seems like we are missing that "reasonable people can disagree" sentiment on so many issues. I see people called bigots and haters because they oppose same-sex marriage. I see people who criticize Obama immeditly called racists.

And that is from the "tolerant" left.

Just because you disagree with me doesn't make you a bad person.

[harriettubman]

There's a difference between someone being against Obama's policies and being against him due to their covert racism. Most people can handle the truth. I'd rather a person say they wouldn't vote for a black man than pretend and make up all kinds of excuses why they disagree with him.

I can agree to disagree in any conversation but what I'm seeing with this gay marriage issue is that many gays don't want to hear an opposing side or you're considered a homophobe, against their civils rights, against gay people period and that's not how society works. People don't always agree on issues but the word "marriage" or husband/wife has been around a lot longer than people coming out of the closet and deciding they want to finally be "married".

In the 80s it was domestic partnership. I guess they've thrown that term to the wind now.
If I were gay, I'd tell the powers that be, who want this issue passed so badly, to change it ASAP and see how it would get passed.

[Cybersquirt]

discrimination = intolerance

denying a group of people a right that the rest of society gets to enjoy based soley on sexual orientation is discrimination.

What's the definition of a bigot again? I think it has something to do with intoleranc­e...

[diablorobotico]

He didn't get fired and he didn't have to resign; he chose to resign because he disgraced himself and his employers.

Why are you for his freedom of expression but against another group's?

Why do you think that it's okay for him to discriminate but not for others to protest it?

Why do you think it's hypocrisy for a group to be consistently for marriage equality and against bigotry?

There is no higher road than equality for all. None. Without equality, everything else is meaningless.

[Cybersquirt]

He sure does have the right to give money to anything he wants to, just as everyone else has the right to spend (or not spend) their money where they want to.

And he wasn't fired.

[equalground]

During all the years I defended people in the workplace against discrimination of sexual orientation, I told people the day would come that same-sex orientaion would gain enough rights that they too would be able to discriminate and that they would do so and deny people the right to work, housing, etc.

As anticipated GLBT have gained their rights and indeed are like evreyone else. We are all the same.

For those of you who justify this as he chose to resign or attach some other reason, how do you think Gays and Lesbians lost jobs, housing, etc. - by people standing up and stating the real reason vs manuevering for other justifications. Most the time they didn't even know they were doing it or thought they were doing something benevolent.

The GLBT community are but in their youth as to understanding civil rights. This should appall but I suppose this is about evening the score and be counted a victory.

My appreciation to WorldGriot for your comments on this blog. The minority continues to be those who understand civil rights. One key principle about civil rights is that it is about the rights of others, not yourself. I suppose we are born understanding or we are taught to understand. No one had to tell me it was wrong in junior high or tell me to stand up for the one being mocked. I was in the minority then and the minority always will be those who find oppression appalling.

[diablorobotico]

Do you really mean to say that those who fight for equality because they have been denied their civil rights don't understand civil rights -- or have I misunderstood you? Perhaps you meant that the people who strip others of civil rights don't understand what they've done.

Because surely nobody with your level of empathy would believe that it's okay for one group to eliminate the Constitutional rights of another group but not okay for that second group to protest it? You just said you're for the oppressed minority, but you also seem to say you're for the oppressing majority.

Which one is it?

[equalground]

Both - The second group is welcome to protest.

Are you saying it is appropriate to deny those with whom you disagree a job, a house, an education, etc? Perhaps, if they are part of the majority, we can deny them these rights. Or, if we control the particular business industry, we can deny them these rights.

He was the Artistic Director, COO, and been with the Theater 25 years.

Was he qualified to do the job? Then, he has been discriminated against because he disagrees with the majority..­.I mean minority. Never mind that his actions were based on his religious confiction. Perhaps he got off too easy by not being arrested and charged with a crime?

Where are we going? I spoke with someone last evening whose Company was threatened with a boycott because he, as an employee, gave to Yes on Prop 8. Do I understand the Gay and Lesbian community would support Yes on Prop 8 supporters obtaining a list of those who donated to No on Prop 8 and pressuring their employors.

I wrote a blog on the morning of November 4th stating we were being introduced to the new agents of oppression. Win or lose, these agent were ready to assume this new role and are doing so before our very eyes.

[harriettubman]

When you work with someone, who asks a person's sexual orientiation? I work with a gay man right now. He's treated the same as everybody else. I don't know where you live to speak about gays losing jobs and being discriminated against so badly. When a gay, white person walks into a job, he's still white. Same thing for a black gay person, except the black gay person can be identified first and foremost by his skin color. When any person is "in your face" with their cause of course things are not going to go smoothly for them and that goes for a gay, black, Asian, Native, Hispanic, etc...

The college student who was killed because he was gay. How many stories are there about that? Those are isolated incidents.

Look at the pregnant "man" who wants the world to believe he's a man. If he's transgendered why did he keep his reproductive organs? Some people are trying to confuse the world then want to get in someone's face demanding they be accepted. You can't be both a female and male; perhaps in the privacy of one's home but not in society.

[diablorobotico]

It's common for female-to-male transsexuals to not have any genital surgery, though having a hysterectomy isn't uncommon. In the case of The Pregnant Man, he intentionally kept his reproductive system so that he and his wife could have more options regarding having children later on. If I remember correctly, his wife is unable to conceive.

If some people can't get that, it still doesn't make it not true.

[newpotusplease]

thank you for writing this- Loving v. Virginia is not equivalent

being Black is not equivalent to being gay

that is not a judgment, a fact

think about brown bag tests, the term "passing" as it plays out for Blacks

think about some well known white news anchors and actors we know are gay- think about how they are "passing"/ undercover etc. by choice and think about the consequences that result for each group
the negative effects for Blacks are different from the negative effects for gays
neither set of prejudice is acceptable or right
but the ARE DIFFERENT and the evolve DIFFERENTLY

[Eric8869]

So we shouldn't say anything when the right to visit our loved ones in the hospital are taken away?

Sounds like a "go sit in the back of the bus" argument to me.

If thats how you really feel we don't need allies like you.

[equalground]

I will research the hospital rights but I do not understand this to be true in California. If you know it to be the case, please explain.

To suggest I have said you "shouldn't say anything" by suggesting you should protect the rights of others, misses the point and demonstrates the inherent inability to understand civil rights as pointed out in my blog.

Expecting you to protect a persons job who is qualified to do the job, but disagrees with your politics, is not asking you to sit in the back of the bus. And we wonder why the Black community cannot identify and feels you are misusing their civil rights battle. Ask your self, who was the bus driver in Sacramento. He would have been happy to sit in the back of the bus but the bus driver would not drive until he left the bus.

Don't worry, Ralph Kramden, I stopped being an ally and got off your bus on election day ,when I realized we were being introduced to the new agents of oppression. Since election day, the reality of my epiphany has only been confirmed.

[ZenBastard]

Some right-wing smacktard is trying to fire up the wingnuts over on his site;

http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/2008/11/13/gays-force-man-from-job-for-supporting-prop-8/

He's trying to say that the gays "forced" this man to resign. He does this by only posting a small part of the whole article. In particular he leaves out the part where Eckern said he was leaving "after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatergoing and creative community.­"

This man has a degree in journalism & this is the best he could do?!? I suggest people head on over to his site & leave a comment letting him know how you feel about his brand of "journalism".

[johnnynyc]

Are you so naive as to believe he didn't resign because of pressure?

How does his resignation protect the organization then?

Protect it from what?

It protects it from the damage of a boycott.

This is a very divisive issue when it doesn't have to be.

Get government out of the marriage business and back into the business of protecting individual rights through the enforcement of contracts.

If we get hung up over the word "marriage" then this will never end.

[diablorobotico]

What evidence do you have that anyone pressured him to resign?

His resignation makes it clear that his employers are not associated with his bigotry, therefore they are protected from a boycott from vendors and customers.

Boycotts, as evidenced by this case alone, are as effective as they are legal as they are democratic.

I agree that it doesn't have to be a divisive issue. All bigots should repent their ways and the issue will be over.

Marriage is the government's business because the government is in the business of enforcing civil contracts. Marriage is a contract and the government protects individual rights through the enforcement of that contract.

I agree that the Mormon Church should stop getting hung up on the word "marriage".

They don't own it. No religion owns the civil contract of marriage. Religions can hold weddings to celebrate civil marriages, but they don't license or control civil marriages. Only the civil contract of a marriage, as embodied in the marriage license issued by the state, makes a marriage.

What any given religion may think of any given marriage is only of interest to people who belong to that religion. If it were true that what some religions believe about marriage were the basis of our laws, then we wouldn't have divorce.

[Eric8869]

We wouldnt be having this argument if he stepped down due to his racist beliefs.

People love justifying their homophobia - like the people commenting on here.

[devadasi]

You're on a roll Eric8869. As a woman, a liberal and an Obama supporter, you're turning me off big time. I'm not religious, but I don't support gay marriage. I support domestic partnership. So call me all the names you want to, it's not going to change a thing. Your agitation and fury is not going to change people's minds. Even in ancient Greece where male homosexuality was perfectly acceptable and exalted, marriage was reserved between a man and woman. Sorry, if I was going with my intellect, I might support gay marriage, but my gut tells me something else. And there is no comparison between racisim and homophobia­....that's a cheap shot.

[cocodee]

Civil rights are not negotiable. If one person does not have complete civil rights under the law, none of us have civil rights.
Please write to lawmakers demanding that this issue be dealt with as a civil right for all.

[KevinH]

If this proposition was illegal and unconstitutional, then they shouldn't have wasted time and money to put in on the ballot. However, it was clear that this is not a partisan issue. 62% of people voted for Obama yet only 48% voted against the ban of gay marriage.

[diablorobotico]

The Supreme Court was asked to rule on the Constitutionality of putting this initiative on the ballot before the election, but they declined while inviting the plaintiffs to try again if the ballot initiative passed. The Court, realizing that it was possible (and, at that time, likely) that the initiative would fail on Election Day, was avoiding making a decision that they may not have had to make.

Now they're going to make it. It is very likely that the same Court that said marriage equality was a fundamental civil right will now say that stripping citizens of rights is a function of the legislature (a revision of the Constitution) and not the electorate (which may only amend the Constitution).

I believe the justices framed their decision deliberately to insure that it could not be easily -- if ever -- reversed and I fully expect that the ballot initiative will not survive judicial scrutiny.

[WorldGriot]

I was and am firmly against prop 8. And I understand the outrage within the GLBT community. I also understand both the outrage against the hypocrisy of the director and his decision to resign. with so much support and understanding, you would think I was resigned to this issue. but while I understand the outrage, I would caution that the GLBT community tread carefully along the line of "outing" people for their support lest you conjure up another period like the 1950's McCarthy era Black Listing. I don't charge any of you with such an intent. I just caution you to tread carefully for intent of the outraged is not the thing that will bring about the tyranny. The intent of Tyrannicals who are ever on the lookout for an issue to wedge between civilized groups - now that's another story. Press your issue as firmly as you must until you get relief. I am with you. but tread carefully on the naming of names. There is a very thin line....

[diablorobotico]

Public donations are public records which are public property that is freely available to the public.

He chose to make his donation with the full knowledge that this information was public.

The public has now reacted to this information.

This isn't a perversion of the system, this is exactly the way the system works.

If it discourages one person from supporting bigotry, then the system has succeeded.

The moral here is: don't leap at the chance to strip away civil rights from your own sister and all the people who create and purchase the very thing with which you make your living. In fact, don't EVER strip away civil rights from ANYONE. The end.

[Eric8869]

Ronald Regan named names at the McCarthy witch hunts and he did ok.

When people are closeted and work against gay rights they EARN the right to be outed. It's called HYPOCRACY.

[MANK]

At least this was of his own free will as opposed to gays who lost their employment for being gay.
Next a boycott for Limbaugh and Hannity.