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

[fredthepostman]

Wow! This man invested 1,000 dollars to make sure his sister doesn't marry!!!!

[anghiari]

gosh and he's not black or latino...how could that happen???

[Eric8869]

He's ignorant and bought the negative advertising paid for by the mormon church.

[DosaHut]

how can a theater director be anti-gay? Does he not consider the majority of his actors?

[LiamPS]

and, uh...being Musical Theatre...most of his audience (and, business in "paying customers")

[devilyousay]

Dometic partnership does not have all the legal rights of a marriage. He needs to get his head out of his "orchestra pit". People have a right to decide to boycott. The decision to step down was his.

I for one, will no longer support anyone who exhibits that kind of bigotry. Bigotry knows no color and no orientation. I would expect though, that someone who has been treated in a discriminatory manner would be a bit more inclusive.

[harriettubman]

Yes it does. Gays from the 80s were fighting tooth and nail for domestic partnership. A new generation of gay people demanded the word "marriage" and that has heterosexuals and even some gay people sick of this issue.

Bigotry is not the correct term for your cause. If you're white, you are not being judged on your skin color.

[diablorobotico]

No, it doesn't. Marriage confers over 1,000 rights denied to couples who aren't married. And since instituting some sort of separate-and-unequal civil unions in New Jersey, for instance, the state's in turmoil because nobody knows what those unions even mean. Everyone knows what marriage means.

Somehow I managed to live through the '80s and miss the fight for domestic partnership. I seem to recall that AIDS was taking up everyone's energy at the time. Didn't they have that where you were?

The fight for marriage equality began in the '70s, immediately after Stonewall began the national fight for equal rights. That fight was basically put on hold in the '80s in order to fight for keeping gay men alive. In the '90s, it was picked back up again. In the short time since then, we've seen three states enact marriage equality, so we're doing extremely well on the issue. Obviously, however, we can do better.

There will always be anti-gay bigots. That's their right. But bigotry is not the official policy of our Constitution or even the American way of life.

Bigots always lose. Always. It just takes time. In a couple more generations, children will be amazed that equality in the United States of America was even an issue in the 21st Century.

[Eric8869]

You are not correct (as usual)

In a domestic partnership - you can still not be allowed to see your partner in the hospital - Marriage that right is AUTOMATIC.

Just one of the 100's of differences.

I know you don't really WANT to learn - just spread your bigotry.

[mamased]

No, you don't have the right to say you are married if you are in a civil union. They are separate and not equal

[Bitsko]

"Of course, a lot of lives were ruined on the other side." Who's life was "ruined"? Adversity is the name of the game in this world, and as the song goes, you've got to fight for your right to be free.

[steve12]

It is wrong for a theater director to be driven out solely based on his contribution to a political campaign. This is political correctness at its worse. Remember, if today you can hound a theater director out for his support of an anti-gay marriage proposition, tomorrow, it can be for a theater director's support of a pro-gay marriage proposition.

This is wrong. It is dangerous and should not be supported. Anti-8 supporters should blame themselves for a bad campaign, not folks practicing their political beliefs, regardless of how wrong they might be.

I say this as a supporter of gay marriage.

[adoantarel]

It is absolutely not wrong. This man wasn't forced out, wasn't fired. He resigned b/c he was bringing negative attention and costing the theater money. Gay people and their supporters have every right not to gie their money to someone who uses that money against their interest. Would you be upset if black people refused to attend a theatre where the art director was a KKK member?

It's a joke for the chairman of Yes on 8 to say the man's right's are being trampled. No one has the right to make money in this country from people who oppose your policies. The religious right can boycott Disney for offer same-sex benefits if they want, and gays can boycott this theatre as long as this guy is on the pay roll.

[quiviran]

Eckern was not expressing a political view. Prop 8 is an undercover run at forcing one groups religious views on the population as a whole. If this was a political action directly supported by a religious organization, they would be acting in violation of the law and subject to losing their tax exempt status.

The problem is confusion over whether marriage is a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony. I say get the state out of marriage altogether. No licenses, no check boxes on tax forms labeled "marital status". Joining of persons into a single legal unit would be by civil procedure that would cover tax issues, inheritance issues and child custody concerns. Once that procedure was complete, the unit could have the joining celebrated by a religious organization if they so chose. It would be the private, tax-exempt religious organizations decision as to which joinings they chose to celebrate.

[ColetteG]

Completey agree. I come from France, and there, you "marry" twice. First at the township, and it is the real marriage under law. Then you "marry" again at the religious organization of your choice, or not at all.
That would solve the problem. It really boils down to whether marriage is taken as a religious judeo/christian institution, or as a legal contract. If marriage was only referring to the religious union, then it is definitely the right of religious organizations to set the validity of the marriages they honor. But their marriage would not be the marriage honored by US laws anyway.
Why is a religious rite embedded in secular laws to begin with?

[diablorobotico]

And I say tha we simply need to stop buying into the religous right's argument that they own the state institution of marriage.

They don't. They own religious weddings and that's it. Marriage belongs to everybody. Religions get the choice of whether or not they choose to view any particular marriage as "sacred" or not, but that's it.

"Joining of persons into a single legal unit" IS the civil procedure we have right now. It's called "marriage". It's not a religous ceremony -- that's called a "wedding" -- it's a civil right. It's not even a civil ceremony -- you can get married in the justice of the peace's office with no ceremony at all.

Everything you say you want we have right this second -- in marriage. Religions can recognize them or not. Just as we can recognize religion or not. The system we have right now is the one in which everybody wins.

Nobody need be confused about what marriage is and what weddings are. Why twist through hoops to humor the religious right by pretending marriage isn't marriage or that they somehow own it? No matter how strong their delusions to that affect, they simply don't.

[mamased]

Again, he was not forced to leave. He chose to. Fact is, making that kind of political statement would make it very difficult to have any integrity within an artistic community. He had the right to stay. He most likely felt that once his position on this human rights issue was public, he'd have a difficult time dealing with his associates.

I think Diablorobotico has the right idea, everyone has the right to be *married* to their chosen life partner with no regard to sexuality. If they choose to be *wed* to their marriage partner they can ask for a religious blessing.

Since the common term for spousal partners is "married" anything else would be "separate but equal." Of course everyone knows that separate is not equal.

That's what this argument comes down to.

If all are equal, you can't have marriage for 90% and civil unions for the others and call that equal.

[littlebrowngirl]

The problem with Prop 8 is that it should NEVER have been on the ballot. I think the government should be in charge of lawmaking, and not make this a popular vote.

I think everyone is entitled to thier own opinion but thier feelings should not be used to change existing laws.

This is a mess.

[leftyandproudofit]

"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.""

Wow! Sounds like Mr. Prentice is acknowledging that gays have a (civil) right to marriage, doesn't it? And exactly what "rights" are detractors of Prop 8 trampling? Contributor's names are a matter of public record. Publishing those names is legal, and in this case, apparently necessary. Do right wingers have any sense of honesty?

[terkid]

An anti-gay theatre director?? Isn't that like a pro-life abortionist?

Good riddance to this un-enlightened baffoon.

[Political Voyeur]

"He said his sister is a lesbian in a domestic partnership, which he understands to carry the same legal rights as marriage."

Well it doesn't. So you should learn what you're voting on before you vote or send money to a crap organization. Class dismissed.

[LiamPS]

Agreed - If he had taken the time to actually ask his sister what it really means he would have been enlightened. He must not really be that close to her.

[QueenOfViolets]

Domestic partnership is okay but marriage is out of bounds?

The man is willing to anger everyone in his profession over some hairsplitting over words?

Wow! Words sure mean a lot to some people.

He should write a play about it.

[TroubleNYC]

Gay people should start their own religion in which it allows for same-sex marriage. Then they can sue the state for religious discrimination.

[sheepleherder]

Wow. That's an awesome idea. Fight fire and brimstone with fire and brimstone. Brilliant move Trouble NYC.

[adoantarel]

Hmmm, interesting. The government can limit religion (e.g., no human sacrifice allowed), but only if it shows a compelling interest. I'm not sure what legal standing you'd have for saying the unions should be recognized by the government, but it's an interesting position. We don't have to start our own relgion though, there are already churches around the country that perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, even if no marriage license is obtained.

[GG1983]

There are churches that did permit same gender marrriages. However the religious freedom of those churches no longer exists, because the proponents of Prop 8 have now made their own religious beliefs a part of the California constitution. So much for separation of church and state.

[NewArtz]

All Prop 8 can do is cause problems. It bans marriage. It says NO!, loudly. Other people's rights to equality are seen as unimportant to those who insist on applying their conscience to override the conscience of another. It's the intrusion of religion into civil matters, and above all it doesn't protect anyone from anything.

The judges who ruled that gay people could not be excluded from marriage were resolving a problem. Prop 8 is an effort to cause trouble. Those who voted for it, voted to cause trouble for others, but, of course, trouble has a way of treating everyone equally. That's why laws should offer equal protection, not selective exclusion from protection.

Sanctity can't be protected by government, but rights must be protected. Surely the Mormons would understand that and not go out of their way to put an initiative on the ballot to persecute. They chose to cast the first stone at a group they perceive as weak and easily bullied.

We all need to recognize the right all of us have to pursue happiness, or ultimately all of us will loose that right.

[walleymr]

Two things:

1) It's funny that the Mor(m)ons are the ones throwing so much support behind a bill banning gay marriage. I wonder how long it'll be until they throw up a bill allowing heterosexual polygamy.

2) Guess that theater director is also a member-in-good-standing with the Log Cabin Republicans.

[GeeWhizBang]

As an ex-Mormon gay, I find the continued irrational hostility towards gays and lesbians to be a thorough repudiation of one of the main tenants of the church, which is "Modern Revelation".

There has been remarkably little of it since Joseph Smith was assasinated more than 100 years ago. It took until the late 70s for the Church to reverse long standing racist teachings about blacks holding the priesthood. They still persist in denying priesthood to women in the church, which relegates them to non-influential roles no matter how much the leaders try to spin it.

Church leaders deliver lengthy sermons at church conferences on how God doesn't make mistakes such as making people gay. Setting aside whether being gay is a "mistake" babies are born with deformities all of the time, so this argument on its face hardly makes sense.

I don't feel like my being Gay was a mistake. It is a fundamental part of my personality, and allows me to make unique contributions to society.

I argue this strenuously because a very nice young man at my childhood church eventually committed suicide over his dad's reluctance to let him be himself. He was a wonderfully flamboyant queen, what a loss.