Sacramento theater director who donated to Prop. 8 faced storm of criticism

Scott Eckern, the Sacramento theater director whose political donation in support of California's Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage has become a lightning rod in the debate over gay rights, resigned today. He said he wanted to protect the California Musical Theatre, his artistic home since 1984, from further controversy.

Word of Eckern's $1,000 donation -- publicly reported under state elections law -- spread rapidly on the Internet late last week, and Eckern drew criticism from some prominent stage artists, including Tony Award-winning composer Marc Shaiman ("Hairspray") and Jeff Whitty, the "Avenue Q" librettist, who wrote on his whitless.com website about his thoughts on how to deal with the fact that "Avenue Q" would be opening at California Musical Theatre in March.

Actress Susan Egan, whose Broadway credits include Sally Bowles in "Cabaret" and the original Belle in "Beauty and the Beast," also passed the word in the theater community. In an e-mail, she said had known and worked with Eckern since 1993 and had been "floored" to learn of his support for Prop. 8, terming it "hypocritical at best and, more likely, distressingly prejudiced."

In Sacramento, Kellie Randle, a partner in a local public relations company, launched a website aimed at supporting Eckern's free speech rights and countering what the site describes as "bullying, intimidation and threats" by out-voted foes of Prop. 8.

"I am disappointed that my personal convictions have cost me the opportunity to do what I love the most," Eckern, the nonprofit stage company's artistic director since 2003, said in a written statement released today by a manager from Randle's firm. Eckern did not return calls Tuesday and Wednesday. In his statement, he said he decided to resign "after prayerful consideration." He apologized "for any harm or injury" taken from his support of Prop. 8, but also affirmed his right "to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved."

"This is a highly emotional issue and the accusations that have been made against me are simply not true," he added.

Eckern -- who wrote that he has a lesbian sister who is in a domestic partnership -- said he would donate $1,000 to the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates equal rights for gays and lesbians. By resigning, he said he hoped to "help the healing in the local theatergoing and creative community."

The director's biography, which apparently had been removed Wednesday from the California Musical Theatre's website, said he holds an undergraduate dramatic arts degree from UC Santa Barbara and a master's in acting from Brigham Young University, and that he's had teaching posts at the University of the Pacific, Sacramento State University and American River College.  As a theater artist, Eckern said, "I have not imposed my beliefs onto any of the works" he oversaw, "but have sought to [allow] the truths found in the storytelling to speak for themselves."

Richard Lewis, executive producer of California Musical Theatre, said there was no pressure on Eckern to resign. "The board did not even hint at the idea that I needed to suggest to Scott" that he give up his job, Lewis said Wednesday. Eckern's duties included casting, hiring and day-to-day oversight of a 7-show summer musical festival and a say in choosing the touring Broadway musicals CMT also presents. Lewis said he spoke regularly with Eckern after the controversy broke out, and talked with him Wednesday after Eckern had announced his resignation by e-mail.

Lewis said he was sure the artistic director had made up his mind and did not try to persuade him to reconsider. "I had made it crystal clear to him... I was there for him whatever way he wanted to go with this."

In an interview Tuesday, the L.A.-based Shaiman, who also works as a film composer, said he spoke to Eckern after learning he'd donated to the gay marriage ban. CMT had presented Shaiman's "Hairspray" twice -- in 2004 as a touring show, and in its own production last August. "He certainly sounded like a gentle man," Shaiman said. "He basically gave me that thing we're just sick of hearing: `These are my religious beliefs, but it's nothing personal.'... I just told him I'm disgusted at that use of money that came in some way from a show I created."

-- Mike Boehm

Photo: Scott Eckern. Credit: Charr Crail

Comments

[Tristan Robin]

"Perhaps because he does not hate gay people, but can actually get along with them on a professional level, maybe even considering them good friends."

Sorry. You don't harm your "good friends." You don't attempt to enshrine discrimination against your "good friends" into the state constitution. You don't push your religious dogma through secular laws on your "good friends."

Frankly, I'm surprised that people thought gays were simply going to take this odious popularity contest on their rights at face value. Did people REALLY think they were going to just say 'oh, well - the idea of first class citizenship was nice - guess it isn't happening.'

I'm most surprised that there have only been eggs thrown at a Mormon church. When the UCC passed the resolution to support and endorse same sex marriages, our churches were FIREBOMBED. I love that NOW these protesters are a MOB.

[Thomas Jefferson redux]

I wondered how long it would take for a wing-nut to spout the Rushism distorted from Thomas Jefferson--"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man"--in defense of Christianist bigotry. And wouldn't you know, it was a guy calling himself Patriotic American who finally did.

I know you'll be shocked, but P.A. took Jefferson's quote out of context. In fact, he flipped it 180 degrees. Jefferson, who was not Christian, was talking about how the establishment of majority religious views in the law is un-American and un-constitutional--which ain't what P.A. assumes.

Here's the bigger context for the often abused "altar of god" quote, in Tom's own lovely words, in which he starts with the 1st Amendment to the Bill of RIGHTS. He was writing to Dr. Benjamin Rush--a different Rush than the one P.A. no doubt listens to:

"...the successful experiment made under the
prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which,
while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom
of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of
obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro'
the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one,
every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians
& Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country
threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of
power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes.
And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god,
eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Tom was saying NO to Christianist morality as a legal foundation, which is another way of saying NO on Prop.8.

[Myles]

If your "good friends" are attempting to make changes that would be damaging to society, then I think you have a right to prevent that. If preventing that is considered harm or discrimination, then allowing it would have to also be considered allowing harm in the opposite direction.

And why do you call it "pushing religious dogma"? Traditional marriage has been the accepted practice for millenia. It has "stood the test of time" so to speak. Those in favor of same-sex marriage are the ones pushing dogma.

[Joe B.]

"For the Yes on 8 haters: shame on you. "will of the people" in your dreams. The numbers show your hateful ilk to be 30% of CA registered voters. Since when does a minority in the USA get to make policy?"

When, indeed?

[Myles]

No, Thomas Jefferson was saying that these denominations were hoping and planning to become the established religion of the "state". He says that he has sworn before God that he will fight such an establishment of a single religion.

To say that he would be against individuals voting their moral beliefs is incorrect.

[Gay Invocations of "exterminations by the Nazis" are a lie.]

re: "Gay people were rounded up and EXTERMINATED alongside Jews and Gypsies by the Nazis in WWII."

COMPLETELY FALSE. Homosexuality was illegal and gays were imprisoned, often in Gestapo camps. They were not a target of extermination, nor were they sent to death camps. There was no attempt to eliminate homosexuality from the non-German countries, whereas Jews and Gypsies were hunted down all over Europe. There is no comparison between the homosexual and Jewish death rates, both in the general population and (especially) in the imprisoned population.

re:"We were labeled with an upside down pink triangle."

For the reasons just mentioned, it's disgusting for pink triangles to be displayed in any way that exploits Jewish or Gypsy experience in WW2 to support present-day political action on behalf of homosexuals. Presumably blacks in California have analogous sentiments that were aired when they voted for Prop 8 (as the vote was never denied to gays, they were not lynched by the hundreds, there was no KKK organized against them, etc).

I hope the Mormon Church helps him find a new job, since they were responsible for him losing this one.

[Brenda]

This is the gay community's definition of tolerance? They have revealed themselves.

[Alonzo Stewart]

White Gays are bigoted. In the 70's I was always asked for 3 ID's to get into their clubs. I stopped going because white gay males just wanted to "look" at each other. They didn't even allow females in their clubs. Today if a contingent of West Hollywood gays came to my mostly black church to discuss prop 8, I would welcome the discussion. Oh, I misspeak. They haven't thought of that. Too busy thinking of themselfs.

[DT]

It's nice to see the liberal left show tolerance, love, and understanding towards people they disagree with politically. Imagine how terrible the world would be if liberals showed the same kind of hatred, vengeance, and bigotry towards their political opponents that they claim they are showed. It takes real courage to defend an opponent's right to his beliefs, speech, and vote when you disagree with him. It takes guts to challenge someone in the political sphere but accept him in the public and economic sphere and not try to coerce him to your way of thinking by attacking him or his family, or by forcing him to quit his job. I'm so grateful that we have open minded, tolerant, multicultural, understanding liberals to show us all how we should conduct ourselves in the struggle against people who may be our political opponents but are still our neighbors and fellow Americans. Just imagine if liberals tried to "out" their political opponents and use hatred and bigotry to force them out of their careers the way racists and bigots have in the past. That would be a real shame.

(Sarcasm intended. Every single person who contributed to this man's resignation should lose their jobs tomorrow. They're not nice, they're not tolerant, they're not good people, they are what they claim others are, bigots with a capital B.)

[JJ Stokes]

THE BLACK AND HISPANIC COMMUNITIES VOTED FOR THIS BILL!!! GO DEMONSTRATE IN EAST LOS ANGELES AND SOUTH CENTRAL!!

Of course, you are not going to see that because its much easier to hate on pasty white religious folks ... the biased media wont point out the hypocrisy of the anti-prop 8 folks in front of churches. What the anti prop 8 crowd dont get is the fact that religious folks are the LEAST likely to alter their opinions and MOST likely to now put more money into backing traditional marriage law. Its the blacks and hispanics that anti prop 8 crowd needs to go after ... only demonstrating their passion and hate for the pro prop 8 blacks and hispanics just doesnt make for a good photo op!!

Im a proponent of giving same sex couples equal rights but Im also against legislating religion and religious beliefs. There is a compromise but people of faith have been ridiculed and discriminated against in the media and their views are not only not heard but they are denigrated, disparaged. What a sad sad world we live in when faith is an ugly word. Im not a member of any church or religion but have a deep respect for faith and a deep dislike for hypocrisy as exhibited by the anti prop 8 crowd. They hypocrisy and hate is repulsive.

[Jerry]

Being gay, I have yet to figure out how the gay community decided or contrived the idea that marriage was a civil right.. Marriage has never been designated a right for anyone gay, straight, male or female.. The joining of two people into a recognized relationship/union was first a tribal/community created/sanctioned ritual that evolved in our country into a behavior regulated by state governments. As long as the two people wanting to join together met the law they were not denied marriage. Over time, states have changed those rules as they saw fit. Many northern states were allowing interracial marriages long before many of the southern states and today states are changing their marriage laws to allow same sex marriages. However, it is the state legislature or in this case a state wide referendum that has decided how California will define marriage. Being LDS, I have also found great solace in the declaration by the church on gay members. I am not seen as a second class member of the church. I am looked upon as a single member of the church and I am asked to live my life as any single person is asked to live in the church nothing more nothing less. There have been times in my life when I waned to have a wife but I knew in my heart that getting married to a woman would have only made her life difficult and would not have changed my sexual orientation. I am grateful for the church and its teachings. I am grateful to know that I am loved by a Heavenly Father who loves me the way I am but that I have also been given instructions on how to live my life so as to prepare me for eternity. Many may be upset with the church on this issue but the church has a responsibility to teach correct principles on moral social issues and allow each individual to govern themselves. If Californians want same sex marriage then enough people will vote in the next referendum to make it happen.

[Stacy A.]

Just substitute the word "Jew" for "gay." Then you can understand why he had to resign. Imagine someone in his position giving $1000 to the Nazi Party while pretending to not be anti-Semetic? That's analogous to what Eckhern did. Prop 8 seeks to deprive gays and lesbians of a basic civil right. Prior to the vote, the sky did not fall in California, the world had moved on, marriage whether straight, gay or lesbian, was doing just fine. Then along comes this Mormon tsunami, and Eckhern feels compelled to give $1000. Is he a bigot? Absolutely!

[The Nazi comparisons are false and dishonest.]

It's preposterous to compare support for prop 8, which at the worst denies gays a number of minor financial conveniences or marginal advantages, with donations to a Nazi party. Proposition 8 does not involve death camps, mega-scale murder, prison ghettos, forced labor, Nuremberg laws, property expropriation, deliberate starvation, state-sponsored hate propaganda, and all-around programmatic extermination.

[Mica]

The People have spoken. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
The whole idea is to reproduce. Can two gays or lesbians do that.
I have nothing against what people do with their lifes, that's all the rights you have. Maybe you people should have stayed in the clouset.

This is getting ridiculous. and when you have so called Politicians encouraging this behavior and marching in their parades it's discusting.
But then again they might be one of them.They just haven't gotten the guts to come public with it.

[Marcos]

Boycotts never work after the fact. Prop 8 passed by 500,000 votes and all this anger will not change that.
The gay community should direct its energies to taking the DPA (Domestic Partnership Act) and living it. Take the advice of Elton John -- he says marriage is for heteros, but he is fine with a civil partnership. All this anger is an emotional explosion, but after it settles down, Prop 8 will still be there.

[markieoe]

"Marriage has never been designated a right for anyone gay, straight, male or female."

Yes it has. And if afforded to one group of citizens, it must be afforded to all groups. Try reading the California Supreme Court decision legalizing same sex marriages. Or the equivalent court decisions in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

[Felix]

So now gays are going to resort to bullying and scare tactics? Im Mexican-American, I voted YES on 8 and so did three other voters in my family. I may have reconsidered but now that im seeing these whinning bullies im going to vote for any other version, if comes, to define marriage between a man and a woman! We are going to patronize all of the business that youre boycotting even more. You will never win. Get over it.

[Joseph Santini]

I can not understand the reasoning for people to vote YES on HATE 8. I married my partner of 26 years, 4 days before the election. We were very concerned that the Evangelical biases, would eliminate our rights. We own businesses, properties and have 2 grown-up kids we adopted years ago (18 & 17 plus a grand-child). My family was finally united through a bond that protects our rights, our properties, and the rights of our children, both kids are straight.

Why would the Catholic Church, who has been hiding in the closets, molesting children all over the world. The Mormons raping your own girls, as young as 12 years old, should have the rights to destroy my family.

I did not put your life-styles on the ballots and voted against you. HOW DARE YOU TO TURN AGAINST ME??? Several Roman Catholics Cardinal, Bishops and priest have lots of monsters in their closets. Once in Rome, in the Vatican, I was part of a BACCANAL that involved several priests. How hypocritical is that???

I support all boycotts and we should demoralize the Catholic Church and the Mormons for crossing the line!!! Even here in Berkeley, we had donors who gave more that $1000.00 for yes on 8. We must out them all!!!

If you have a short stick, don't taunt the Lions. You have a price to pay!

Liberte, Egalite for all.

We don't care to get married by the church. Let's rename every union in California, CIVIL UNIONS. Marriage only in church and you can stick to your own kind. No reasons to bother anybody-else.

[K LA]

No On 8 Protestor Actions are HATE-FILLED. As I watched the news today, I was greatly disturbed to learn people’s donations are available to the public. When we go to the polls, our voting is private. Without this privacy, thugs can influence a voter through intimidation. This is what the No on 8 protestors are doing. Donations for a cause should be kept a private matter for this very reason. Your financial support should remain a private matter between the donor and the receiver. As a private citizen, your financial support and your voting should remain a private matter. The No on 8 folks are now operating by fear and intimidation. With financial support information available to them, they are acting in a hate-like manor. I have friends who are same sex couples. I certainly don’t hate them. I love them. I voted Yes on 8 because of a belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. I’m not infringing on their rights to love each other. Those people who donated for or against Prop 8 should be able to remain private. Yet the Opposing view wants to expose all those who financially supported Prop 8 as some kind of criminal. Are you freaking kidding! This is not China, Russia, nor North Korea. We are able to exercise our freedom of speech. But we should not have to endure fear and intimidation by those opposing the speech we exercised. That is simply intolerant.

The No on 8 protestors are displaying their intolerance to the voters who voted Yes on 8. They displayed their violence all over California by destroying signs on personal property, spray painting homes and cars, and destroying of other personal property. After the election, my home was egged by No on 8 aggressors. As they have taken their frustration to the street, they shout their message of intolerance. You must accept their moral belief and no other. Why? Because they do not want you to consider moral values when you vote. Question? What’s stopping a brother from marrying his sister, or a 1st cousin from his/her 1st cousin, or a father and his son/daughter, or a mother and her son/daughter, or a man to marry more than one woman at a time? We have moral laws which govern marriage. So I ask you where does it stop? If your gay, it stops after same sex marriage is written into the law. Where does it stop for a father who wants to marry his daughter? Under the same basis No on 8 supporters believe, anyone should marry anyone they want without restraint. But really, no one wants to allow a 30 year old father to marry his 8 year old daughter do they? The fact is morality does have a place in our legislation.

Yes on 8 passed and should stand.