Prop. 8 repercussions hit Sacramento theater

The blowback from last Tuesday's passage of Prop. 8, which prohibits same-sex marriage in California, has hit the California Musical Theatre, a major nonprofit stage company in Sacramento, following the revelation via the Web that its artistic director gave $1,000 to back the state constitutional amendment.

Among those weighing in with dismay over Scott Eckern's donation are Tony winners Jeff Whitty, who wrote the book for "Avenue Q," and Marc Shaiman, composer and co-lyricist of "Hairspray." Shaiman said Tuesday that he phoned Eckern on Friday to protest, then e-mailed more than 1,000 contacts to alert them about the donation.

"Of course it's his right to donate the money," said Shaiman, who was disappointed that Eckern, a California Musical Theatre employee since 1984 and its artistic director since 2003, had benefited from last season's touring production of "Hairspray," then piped money to a cause the L.A.-based Shaiman deplores. In their conversation, Shaiman said, "he basically gave me that thing we're just sick of hearing -- 'these are my religious beliefs, but it's nothing personal' " against gay people. "I don't want to hear that anymore. I just told him I'm disgusted at that use of money that came in some way from a show I created." (Update: The “Hairspray” production at California Musical Theatre last August was not a touring production, but one mounted by CMT itself. A touring version of “Hairspray” was seen at the theater in 2004.)

Whitty, whose "Avenue Q" is scheduled to play the Sacramento theater in March, was among those alerted by Shaiman's e-mail. On Monday,  he wrote in his whitless.com blog that "like Marc, I'll work to prevent CMT from producing any of my future shows with Mr. Eckern at the helm. To me, he's one of those hypocrites who profits from the contributions of gays ... but thinks of us as ultimately damned."

But today, despite wanting to "make an example of somebody," Whitty blogged that he reversed his stance on a boycott, writing that Eckern had given him a "convincing and sincere apology" and didn't deserve to be targeted for more censure. Whitty said he would "look forward to working with the California Musical Theatre in the future."

Shaiman said he would keep pushing for public acknowledgment and redress that would not damage the theater for one individual's political views but would make it clear that anti-gay views won't be accepted in the theater community. A benefit event at California Musical Theatre might be appropriate, he said, allowing backers of gay marriage an artistic platform while raising money to help mount a legal appeal to overturn Prop. 8.

In any case, Shaiman said, the response should be measured. When told that Eckern's donation had been posted on a website called antigayblacklist.com that calls for a boycott against businesses and professionals who backed Prop. 8 -- including some public school teachers -- the composer, who also writes film music, questioned using the word "blacklist," the term for the exclusion of artists in 1950s Hollywood for having suspected Communist leanings. "We have to watch ourselves and not become what we're fighting against," he said.   

Eckern released a statement today apologizing "for any harm or injury" caused by his donation. He said he would donate $1,000 -- commensurate to what he gave Prop. 8 backers -- to the Human Rights Campaign, a group that supports equal rights for gays and lesbians. Update: Eckern’s full statement is here.

After talking with many friends and colleagues, he said, "I have a better idea ... how deeply felt these issues are, and I am deeply saddened that my acting upon my religious convictions has been devastating to those I love and admire." He noted that his sister, a lesbian, is in a domestic partnership relationship.

Richard Lewis, the executive producer whose family founded California Musical Theatre decades ago, said Eckern's views were his own, not the theater's, and affirmed "appreciation ... for the [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] community who have played a crucial role in our success." A torrent of e-mails and calls protesting Eckern's donation began on Friday and has continued, said Lewis, who likened the  blowup to when Los Angeles Dodgers executive Al Campanis questioned on national television whether black ballplayers had the right stuff to be successful baseball managers.

"We're looking at the magnitude of the situation and need to discuss whether we take any action.... We don't want to rush into things and do something foolish," Lewis added. "We just put the initial statement out there: 'Don't punish the theater for what Scott chose to do.' "

The theater, which presents touring Broadway shows and produces its own summer musical festival of seven shows, hiring scores of actors and designers who commonly work in New York, has no policy against employees being politically active or making political contributions, Lewis said. He dismissed the notion that Eckern could be fired for backing Prop. 8 or that it would be allowable under California employment law.

-- Mike Boehm

Photos: Marc Shaiman, top; Jeff Whitty, with Tony Award

Photo credits: Shaiman, Al Seib / Los Angeles Times; Whitty, Jeff Christensen / Reuters

Comments

[Norman]

HMS - I do not agree with your reasoning at all. The "turning of the tables" is a misleading way to look at this.
No one could be criticised for saying "I refuse to knowingly participate in the denial of human rights to anyone." That would be the other side of this coin.

[Norman]

RE: Miles comment, 12:23 pm,above:
I hesitate to try to inject sarcasm here given it often lands wide of its intended mark, but...
If Miles wants to ensure that Heterosexual Marriage is legally different from Homosexual Marriage - that's easy. Make divorce unconstitutional in heterosexual marriages, but not in homosexual marriages.
Problem solved!

[Myles]

Preventing a redefinition of marriage to a genderless institution is what I would consider protecting it.

And with regards to the family, how can I teach my children that marriage should only be between a man and a woman if the governent does not recognize that as a valid definition? Does that start to affect my ability to teach that point of view? What about voicing that opinion in public? How is that affected? What about my ability to decide when and where my child learns about human intimacy? How is that affected?

I don't know the answers to all of these questions, nor do I think everything with regard to this issue should be all doom and gloom. But certain aspects of it certainly make me nervous.

[homogenius]

Oh, poor Scott. He thought he could stab his sister and his LGBT coworkers and patrons in the back and offend their family and friends and nobody would know. Ooopsie!

Yes, he had the right to do that. And LGBT people and our family and friends had every right to declare that we would not work with him or patronize the theater company that employed him.

He had every right to keep his job. The board of directors of CMT was wise to cancel their emergency meeting to eliminate even the appearance of illegally denying his rights of religion and free speech. To his credit, he made the correct choice. Otherwise, CMT would be stuck with him with no legal recourse while talented people refused to work for them, licensed properties were made unavailable to them, and patrons avoided buying tickets.

Unfortunately Scott doesn't get it. He thought he could continue to work in a creative industry while actively supporting taking away the civil rights of many of the people around him. I'm sure he'll be able to play his martyr status on the national circuit. Even evangelicals who hold mormons at arms length will embrace him--I fully expect to see him on The 700 Club at the soonest possible opportunity.

To all those people crying for poor mistreated Scott, give me an effing break. Actions have consequences. LGBT people get fired all the time for being who they are. Scott is not a victim of anything except his own hubris. CMT couldn't have fired him if they wanted to. But if he had stayed, a very fine arts organization would have lost money and possibly even gone under. The people who will not patronize CMT because Scott left are far fewer than those who will stay. In the end, this is likely the lesser of two evils.

I may have to make a trip to Sac'to to attend a production there. To all our progressive friends in the area, please show some love to CMT. If you're out of the area, please consider a donation in the name of "Scott Eckern's sister".

Myles:

And with regards to the family, how can I teach my family and children (adopted, surrogate, foster, other) that marriage can be between any two loving adults who want to dedicate themselves to each other and form a family together if the governent does not recognize that as a valid definition? Does that start to affect my ability to teach that point of view? What about voicing that opinion in public? How is that affected? What about my ability to decide when and where my child learns about human intimacy? How is that affected?

[tima]

And I though that Ovitz was crazy when he blamed the "Gay Mafia". I guess now we can take away the quotation marks and forgive Ovitz.

[ken]

Well I hope your satisfied!!! Scott is gone!!! long live the Queen!! He could have, and obviously should have donated $999.00 instead of $1,000.00 and hid behind a loophole but he did not. now he's paying for his mistake. But remember Mr homogenious, what goes around comes around. With Scott gone, I will tear up my season tickets for the Broadway series, Music Circus series, and now will not buy a package for the new Caberet theatre. I have many Gay and Lesbian friends, that are horrified at the extreme some of these activists have gone to to get even with Scott. Some of the say that their "friends" are backing Mr Shaiman in his crusade and do not understand why. I will simply say, as Bullwinkle used to say, "if you take the r out of friend, you are left with fiend."

RE:something Ketassii said above 3:27 AM: (NOTE: taken out of context here but an interesting comment on many levels)

"Traditional marriage and gay marriage are not the same. There is no equality issue here. It is biology."

so I guess...
Same-race and interracial marriage are not the same, There is no equality issue here. It is biology.

And please, let us be honest here - many married heterosexual couples do not have children, either voluntarily (don't want them) or involuntarily (infertility, age, etc.) And clearly, in cases of adoption, surrogacy, stepchildren, foster children, etc, etc. there is no necessity for the married couple to be of opposite sexes.

[Ronnie Jarvis]

Good for you Scott!! I support you.

[mark]

gay mafia.....underestimates US

That implies a relatively small group of gays/lesbians directing others.
We are an infinitely diverse minority who are EVERYWHERE, and when we are angered we fight back as dirty as an alley fight, with whatever is at hand. Businesses don't ONLY need to fear an attack from outside, we are INSIDE every business. Imagine the damage a REALLY REALLY disgruntled employee could cause a CEO when books are slightly sabatoged, or an overnight package gets sent to a slightly wrong address, or a closeted employee you would never imagine to be gay....leaks information of padded tax deductions, or somebodies inter office affair of married colleagues.
Mafia....is KID STUFF

[kristy]

Look up "tyrannical majority".

The majority does not have the right to vote away the rights of a minority.

And seriously, a 52% majority? Really? You're lording that slim of a majority over people? Really?

If you're prepared to "assert your first amendment right" to force your religious views on others, be prepared to have others assert their own first amendment rights, namely to not be ruled by the religious views of others, and to speak out and use their own money and voice against you as you have done to them.

[Myles]

OK, so our desires to teach our kids and have the government on our side are mutually exclusive. So what should we do?

Maybe we should look at the reasons that societies even get involved in the marriage question. Why do societies recognize and promote marriages? The first thought that comes to mind is that promoting stable marriages promotes stable families. So is it in the best interest of society to limit that to heterosexual couples only? If the husband/wife model is the best way for families to grow in a healthy environment, then it would be in society's best interest to promote that type of arrangement.

Unfortunately for those who are trying to make an informed decision, the public is only presented with anecdotal information at the two extremes of both types of families. We are told the stories of homosexual couples who are faithful to each other and doing their best to raise children. Then we are pointed to the divorce rate among heterosexual couples and instances of abandonment, neglect and abuse perpetrated by a segment of this group. That seems a little unfair doesn't it?

If the public were presented with stories of homosexual couples who are unfaithful to each other and end their relationships (with children as the innocent victims) and on the other hand shown examples of ideal families where the husband and wife raise their children in love and respect, you better believe there would be a public outcry of bias in that situation. Funny that it doesn't work the other way.

There are already objective studies that show which family model is better for healthy children and successful families. Unfortunately, they would not have much impact on those who have already made up their minds.

In the end, I don't think this is a civil rights issue. The role of society is to define marriage in the way that will best serve the interests of society. Unfortunately, that definition will make part of the society unhappy (that's the case with any law), but it is not taking away any basic human rights. It does not say anything about love, personal lives, living arrangements, etc. It simply promotes what will be the best for society.

[kettasii]

"Traditional marriage and gay marriage are not the same. There is no equality issue here. It is biology."

Regarding my above statement, here is what I meant by biology.

From evolution/biology standpoint, the purpose of sex is survival of a species. If all members of a species are homosexual, the species will not survive. So the "natural" thing is that sex is between male and female. This is what the traditional marriage is based on.

[Bubba]

It's ok folks, gays just want acceptance...

...and they want to change marriage certificates to read "Spouse A" and "Spouse B"...

...and they want to put church-run adoption agencies out of business....

...and they want to force your son to go off to scout camp with a gay scoutmaster...

...and they want to force businesses to give spousal benefits to gay couples as well as straight couples...

...and they want to shove it into your child's mind at school...

...and they want to deny you your right to criticize gays at all (as in Canada - Google "Stephen Boissoin" for more on that)...

...and then they want to get you fired if you don't submit to the loyalty oath.

Yep, just acceptance. And all the rest.

I've always accepted gays - always. But when I heard what they did to Mr. Eckern I'll admit that the first word out of my mouth was the "F" word - the three letter version.

Screw 'em. I'm done with these fanatics. They don't want "equal rights" or even just "acceptance" - they want to shove it down our throats.

[Jules]

It kind of seems like the real bigots are actually the No on 8 people. A blacklist? Like from the 1950's? I thought you people were supposed to be "progressive".

[JP]

Ask yourself this...if your husband or wife was in critical condition and you needed to be there in the hospital, but you couldn't because you are not FAMILY, how would you feel? You can't be there at their bedside while your loved one is dying because the state does not recognize you as a spouse. Or you, the wife who doesn't work, taking care of the children, imagine that your husband dies, leaving you with the children and no job, but you can not have any benefits from your spouse because the state does not recognize your 30 year marriage. Wake up people, SO MUCH of this is about money. If they recognized these marriages, they would have to pay benefits. I know I get these benefits and am grateful...I believe ALL people should reguardless of gender.
As far as Scott, if you are not in the community, you can not understand how close it is. And there is the little account of the Mormon church donating 17 million dollars to this cause...there is a petition going around.
No more Blockbuster for me.

[Janet]

I have just heard what has been going on for the last couple of days and that today Mr. Eckern resigned. I have scanned the blogs here to see where people are coming from. This is a sad day. Unbridled anger is dangerous and destructive. One man's over the top reaction has cost another man his livelihood - a man who has supported the former's livelihood. This is not war, this is democracy being worked out. There have been many times when elections have gone the way I wanted and many times when other people's beliefs and values have been imposed on me. The hope is that people with differing views can still live in the same community without such hate-filled responses. It isn't always personal - it can be just a different opinion. I dream of a day when anyone can express an opinion and not be worried about it being "PC." What has happened with this incident pushes that dream far away. I would hope that people hold the individuals who started this whole thing accountable to the outcome of their actions. This is just a very sad day.

[Scott]

Don't forget this:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/10/23/state/n145556D05.DTL&tsp=1

Miles - I have an idea that might resolve the dilemma. Promote, teach and encourage loving, stable, faithful families and values of acceptance, love of neighbor and inclusion - this eliminates the need for any kind of us-vs-them, accepts the differences between people (some might say differences made by nature, some might say differences made by God) and gives value and societal recognition and support to all loving and nurturing relationships.
Imagine creating a society where your gay children, or mine, have every hope of a life free from discrimination, hatred, feelings of inferiority, fear for physical safety etc. and where they have the same chances of a life partnership protected and valued by society in the same way your, or my, straight children will have. Everybody benefits. What do you think?

Hi Kettasii - what about if instead of "all" members of a society being either straight or gay, we say "some" - that way, no threat to survival of species, and sex can be an expression and source of love, commitment, strengthening of bonds and physical and emotional joy as well as a means of procreation. We get all of the above instead of an either/or scenario.
And for the biological part, are you suggesting that anyone incapable of producing children biologically would make for an "unnatural" marriage? - Infertile men or women, women who have passed menopause, etc?
Or is it possilbe that there are real, legitimate, important benefits to individuals and society from the situation of being married that have nothing to do with the biological creation of children?