Director Scott Eckern's resignation over his support of Prop. 8: A game-changer in theater history?

This week's revelation that Sacramento theater director Scott Eckern had made a $1,000 donation in support of California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage -- and his subsequent resignation Wednesday from the California Musical Theatre to "protect" the organization from controversy -- obviously pushed buttons for Culture Monster readers, who have weighed in with more than 100 comments in reaction to Mike Boehm's posts about the executive leaving his job.

Eckern remained unavailable for comment Thursday. Members of the theater community interviewed in the wake of Eckern's resignation overwhelmingly disagreed with his position on Proposition 8. But they said they hoped the furor over his contribution -- in light of the fact that he owes his livelihood to the musical theater community, which includes many gays and lesbians -- will be a catalyst for continued community dialogue on the subject of same-sex marriage.

And dialogue, they maintain, is what theater should be all about.

Bill Rauch, director of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland and former artistic director of Los Angeles' Cornerstone Theater Company, said Thursday that he felt "heartsick" for everyone involved in the controversy, including Eckern. He added that he hoped the situation would open a longterm dialogue in the theater community, in the same way the controversy over white actor Jonathan Pryce playing the role of a Eurasian pimp on Broadway in "Miss Saigon" opened a conversation about race and casting.

The details on that fracas:

Pryce (left, in a 1997 photo) played the role in the musical in London.  When it was announced that "Miss Saigon" was going to Broadway in 1991 with Pryce as the star, Asian theater professionals protested.  Actors Equity officials initially barred Pryce from performing on Broadway but reversed the decision when producer Cameron Mackintosh said he would cancel the show. Pryce went on to win a Tony for his performance.

"I think the dialog deepened about authenticity and artistic responsibility. It was not about a decision that got made, thumbs up or thumbs down, but the dialog shifted permanently,"  Rauch said. "This could really be an important moment."

L.A. writer-performance artist Luis Alfaro, who once described himself to the Times as an "out gay Latino," said that, although he is actively protesting Proposition 8, he believes that Eckern's resignation "upped the dialogue" on same-sex marriage. "Isn't that what we're doing as theater artists? How do we support many different points of view?" Alfaro said.

And while he is "saddened" by Eckern's viewpoint, Alfaro added, "maybe what he has done is throw the first volley."

Danielle Brazell, director of the Arts for LA arts advocacy organization, posted a comment saying those who felt that Eckern should be fired or the theater boycotted because of Eckern's donation set a "very, very dangerous precedent as it could happen to anyone in the arts."

In an interview Thursday, Brazell said: "The pendulum is swinging in very interesting ways. This was an historic election: [Barack] Obama ... has put together a cultural transition team and sees culture as a way to address some of our really deep-rooted issues in this country. We have opportunities to create deeper levels of dialogue."

While agreeing that the arts provide a forum for examining controversial subjects, Laura Zucker, executive director of the the Los Angeles County Arts Commission, cautioned that those in leadership positions, such as Eckern, must be aware that they have to use their voices with care.

"The bottom line is I would always defend the individual's right to become involved in a political process in a way that they feel is important to them," Zucker said. "But if you head an organization, you do need to be aware of the fact that there are larger ramifications to everything you do.

"There is no escaping that reality."

--Diane Haithman

Photo: Jonathan Pryce. Credit: Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times

Comments

To opponents of gay marriage: I'm interested in knowing what you say to your gay and lesbian children when they tell you they want to form a legally recognized marriage with their same-sex partner?

I would be more inclined to give serious thought to those posting here who are outraged about Eckert's resignation, if they also expressed in equally strong terms their outrage over the rescinding of the rights of Californians to enter into same-sex marriage.

From scott's post, above. "Why can't people understand that we can stand up for the sanctity of marriage without "hating" homosexuals"

As a gay man I totally support the sanctity of marriage. Only, I recognize that that sanctity should be available to any two loving, consenting adults who decide to enter into marriage.

Hatred / prejudice/ disapproval / discrimination/ distinctions of 'some people are "better" than others' comes in all flavors.

The sanctity of marriage comes from the behavior of the two partners toward each other and the way they as a couple show love, kindness, etc. to the rest of the world.

There is no sanctity added to your marriage from denying marriage rights to
others.

[JJ]

As a deacon in the Catholic church who has been in his loving. gay relationship for nearly fifteen years, I understand both sides of the argument. I feel some empathy for Eckern but, ultimately, after twenty-three years of working in the theatre he knew there might be fallout from his actions. He is not so stupid. We're adults and we know regardless of our beliefs, we make choices everyday on how we associate with those around us. Every interaction comes with possible consequences. He knew. I have also always been intrigued that when it comes to the Top Ten on God's "Thou shalt not" list, the ten commandments, there is no mention of homosexuality. Adultery, yes! I doubt prison time for adulterers would pass as many of the religious leaders have broken that Top Ten Commandment! Honoring thy mother and father, also on the Top Ten! HHHHmmmmmm! The Bible has become a tool slanted to whoever is holding it the highest or yells the loudest or spends the most money. More death has been wrought in the name of God, right Catholics? We as a people never learn from history. The simple essence of the Bible is hate and prejudice killed the Son of God, i.e., hate is bad. Live and let live! Judge not, lest ye be judged! Do we truly and completely understand the word of God? The Holy Father is the only one to judge our actions. Won't it be shocking if, on that day, he doesn't judge the homosexual as Satan but, instead, is angered by those who passed judgement on Earth?

[Tom]

Ok, let's think about this argument:

"The sanctity should be available to any two loving, consenting adults who decide to enter into marriage."

That means you logically HAVE to support:
1. Incestuous marriage
2. Polygamy

Think about it. If you voted NO on Prop 8 based on the above argument you logically have to support these other forms of "self expression."

If you don't then you are, by your own definition, a bigot.

[sc]

Why is it that people who don't support same sex marriage always bring up polygamy or bestiality or as Tom just did incest as the next frontier of marriage? Tom, for the most part, defeats his own argument where he mentions that defining marriage as between two consenting adults opens the door to polygamy and incest. Polygamy by definition requires more than two adults so is ruled out and most incest is non-consensual in that it usually involves an adolescent who therefore cannot be considered a consenting adult. I might as well as tackle the bestiality issue since someone is boudn to bring that up, animals have no ability under our laws to consent to a legal contract.

To Angelina (above, Nov 14): I can't find your posts expressing your outrage about those people and jurisdictions that deny gay people the right to adopt or foster children. But I'm sure you feel sickened that children should be left in state shelters or other public institutions when so many gay men and lesbians want to supply a loving, secure home and family life to them and are denied that ability.

SC - don't bother - this predictable descent into the absurd is the time-honored way to avoid the real issue of one's irrational bigotry. An perfect example of what
Bruce Vilanch expressed so simply and accurately above: "There is no dialog to be had with religious bigots."

[Jenny]

Melissa Etheridge didn't contribute to the Obama campaign, despite the fact she claims to have "worked so hard for Obama", of course, neither did Ellen Degeneres, check opensecrets.org.

Regarding Etheridge's stance on not paying taxes, fine, her properties should have liens put on them, and then be put up for sale. Etheridge should also not feel entitled to rely upon services paid for by the taxpayer, fire protection, police, paramedics, public streets and roads (her pollution spewing tour buses, and equipment trucks shouldn't be a burden on society either), clean water, health department services, that protect food, product and medical safety, public schools, public libraries, air traffic controllers, and yes, the arts.

Taxpayers also pay to ensure that those with HIV/AIDS, who are too poor to pay for medical care, get it free, perhaps Ms. Etheridge wants to hide behind a single issue to rationalize not paying her taxes, but then she should be compelled to explain to those uninsured HIV/AIDS patients why she excuses all those who wish to exploit single issues to do the same.

Ms. Etheridge, Ms. Degeneres, aside from their lies about "supporting" Obama, should also address why they have been so silent on the racism in the gay community.. it might have been outed in the early morning hours of Nov 5th, but it's been a significant problem for much longer than that.

Why for example, if there is such an expectation of ideological "purity", was the fact that their own Log Cabin republicans have been able to get away with supporting politicians who they KNEW would promote policies that were bad for the gay community, merely so they could squeeze out every bit as high a tax cut as possible? Perhaps the Ms's Etheridge and Degeneres are closeted Log Cabin republicans? On opensecrets.org it shows that they, Rosie O'Donnell, and Roseanne Barr too, not only didn't contribute to Obama's campaign, but they didn't contribute to any candidates, not this year, in '06, in '04 either.

Where were the protests against the LCR's? Where was the indignation, when the LCR laden "no on 8" campaign took $250,000.00 from PG&E, the same corporation that ripped off the rate and tax payers of California, AND poisoned untold numbers of Californians, when they contaminated groundwater with the carcinogen chromium 6? No outrage over the fact that upon taking that blood money, the SF contingent of "no on 8" refused to support prop 10, which would have broken up PG&E's monopoly status in SF?

Then again, why would the same gay community that has refused to deal with its own hateful, racism, that is comprised of extremely affluent people who gleefully displace the black community in SF, that chortles over the violation of the rights and freedoms of others.

I've fought for gay rights since the '80s, and you've all lost my respect, and that means my support and money. If you're all so ignorant of the fact that when you rationalize the behaviors you've all exhibited/rationalized, you are undermining your own rights. This is what the nazi's did, what the fascists did, and you know what, gays were among those who brought Hitler, and the fascists to power. Google Ernst Rohm if you need enlightenment on that subject.. you all should already know with how Rohm's hatred and intolerance brought him.

My sympathies are with Mr. Eckhern and his family. This man was railroaded out of his job, in a dire economy, when chances are he's going to have a hard time finding another job. The dangerous precedent you've all helped establish will mean that gays will ultimately find themselves forced out of jobs, and they will be less likely to have sympathy or support.