For the record, I was determined not to write about Proposition 8 passing in California. (Because really, how many times and in how many ways can you say, "I hate you, 52% of California. I hate you. I hate you"?) But then I read the article in this past Wednesday's New York Times about Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the California Musical Theater. He resigned earlier this week after activists outed his $1,000 contribution to the Yes on 8 folks and several prominent gay men in theater complained — including Marc Shaiman, the Tony Award-winning composer ("Hairspray") who called Eckern to say that he would not let his work be performed in the theater.
Now Eckern, along with Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind the ballot measure, are defending their bigotry as a constitutional right and complaining that those who protest their actions are being intolerant. Per Schubert: "No matter your opinion on Prop. 8, we should all agree that it is wrong to intimidate or harass anyone for exercising their constitutional rights."
No sense of irony, straight guys. But hearing them play the you're-the-real-bigot-for-punishing-me-for-exercising-my-right-to-free-speech card just got on my last gay nerve. So here we are. I'm writing about Prop 8.
Because Eckern, who is married with children, is just not getting this on his own. He still thinks, per his statement of resignation, that he can simultaneously be "loving and supportive" of his lesbian sister (!) while refusing her the opportunity ever to have her union and her family be considered equal to his. He still thinks of himself as someone who does not "support any message or treatment of others that is hateful or instills fear."
But he is wrong. And oh to be a fly on the wall at the Eckern Thanksgiving table this year when his sister and her family arrive…
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Oh no you didn't! (Why it's not ok to support Prop 8, then hide behind the Constitution).
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10473
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Yeah, that whole Prop 8 = First Amendment thing is weird. I can't imagine how forcing everyone to adhere to YOUR religious values can possibly be construed as "freedom of religion." I also saw a campaign sign once that said, "Prop 8 = Less Government," and I was really, really confused for DAYS. I wanted to park my car and go over to the lady and ask her, "Seriously? Explain please." In fact, I'm still confused.
Evangelical Christianity has this martyr complex that results from having holy books that were written when their authors were in danger of torture and death for their religion. The whole "they will hate you for your faith" thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy when you use your faith to be an asshole.
Thank you for this! Someone's right to have his/her beliefs respected ends when s/he uses them as an excuse to take away the basic rights of others. It's high time people like Eckern felt some consequences for their actions and learned that their rights are those of citizens, not tyrants.
they are added to the list of
TWISTED FUCKS
who supported prop 8
who are members of communities (churches) that supported prop 8
a bunch of
TWISTED FUCKS
twisting the very concepts of freedom, protest, choice, hate and love.
aaargh.
TWISTED FUCKS!
well, i do agree that no one should be "intimidated and harassed" for supporting prop 8. intimidation and harassment goes too far, but they would probably love to define those terms in a way that includes everyone who disagrees with them and isn't afraid to say so.
the fact that they have the right to support prop 8 does not mean they shouldn't have to take the consequences of doing so. they are displaying hateful bigotry by supporting it. if they are facing a public backlash it is their own fault.
the first amendment may give you the right to support prop 8 but it also gives me the right to call you a bigoted asshole for doing so.
Well, yes, it is his constitutional right to support a political candidate or ballot measure. But it is also his colleagues' right to say that they don't feel comfortable working with someone who has obvious prejudices against them.
I hate when people twist the first amendment to suggest that they can say dumb things and not be called out for it.
I entirely disagree with you. Why? Because Prop. 8 is not about hating gay people (for some people, at least).
Aren't there legitimate cultural conservatives out there who are simply uncomfortable with a redefinition of marriage? Say what you will about the institution, but it has been around for thousands of years, so I think that whether or not it should be changed is a legitimate debate.
Now, if Eckern is had said, "I think being gay is wrong, so I'm voting against Prop. 8," then any backlash would be for personal - not political - views. But while not constitutionally protected, I think everyone benefits from having all political views protected from personal backlash.
Political views reflect personal views. And while people are (and should be) protected from physical or threatening backlash, "protection" does not entail silencing others. I do not think it counts as "threatening" or "violent" to call Eckern a dumbfuck and call out his bigotry.
I wasn't referring to calling Eckern a "dumbfuck." In fact, I think questioning his intelligence was the right thing to do, by engaging in public debate on the subject
What I object to is the propriety of individuals driving Eckern from his job in response to his personal, private views on a political issue.
To analogize a bit, I feel like this is on the same level as driving someone out of a job because he or she donated to Planned Parenthood. Wouldn't everyone be outraged then? The point is that people should have a right to privately (or publicly) support any political position they please, without fear of economic consequences.
Yes, but at the same time, you might reconsider publicly donating to Planned Parenthood if you were simultaneously looking to, for instance, get a job with Catholic Charities. Protected speech or not, this guy might have planned in advance a little and realized that voting for legislation to curtail gay rights is a fucking stupid career move when you work in musical theater.
I do think, however, that it's a bit unfair to say that anybody who might have voted "yes" for the measure did so out of bigotry. The measure itself may have been born of bigotry and have been structured obviously to codify it, but that doesn't mean that everybody who voted for it did so with such biases at heart. I don't think we, or many opponents of Prop 8, can purport to know the many reasons someone may have voted for it.
(And of course, there is an argument to be made for political donations being equivalent to free speech. I just don't happen to think it's a very good argument. Some conservatives make it all the time against some campaign finance reform, insisting that efforts to limit the money they can spend amount to limits on their freedom to express themselves through those dollars.)
People say that this is re-defining marriage, or is of some other cultural significance.
Saying this makes you seem ignorant of how language works.
A "bow" is the front part of a ship. A "bow" is a gesture made by bending at the waist. The letters are the same. The pronunciation is the same, but the words refer to very different things.
"Marriage" is a social institution. "Marriage" is a religious institution. "Marriage" is a legal institution. The letters are the same. The pronunciations are the same. But the words refer to very different things.
My parents have stated to their community that they intend to spend their lives together, the community recognizes them as a social unit. They thus have a marriage(social).
They both believe in a god, and their church has recognized this union as a holy bond between souls. Thus they have a marriage(religious).
They also signed a contract, designed, sustained and enforced by the powers of the state in which they live. This contract was created under state law and grants them certain rights and obligations towards one another. Thus they have a marriage(civil).
The problem with your position is you are watering down the meaning of marriage by conflating all the definitions with marriage(civil).
What the state grants, the state can take away. You're ascribing to the state the power and authority to break up not only my parents marriage(civil) but also their marriage(religious) and their marriage(social).
Prop 8 has no impact on what god does or doesn't do; the Govenator isn't quite that powerful yet. Nor can the state force you to recognize a given household arrangement as good or not good.
So, when people go, "It's not about law, it's about a social institution" I look at them with contempt.
Either you're so amoral that you look to what is legal to determine what is moral or you're playing linguistic games to disguise bigotry.
Either way, this is a position that deserves no respect.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I agree with your basic point: that marriage is an institution with many facets.
However, I would point out that what constitutes a marriage (civil) is a matter of public policy. Because the government does determine public policy, then surely we can agree what the definition of legal marriage is (the contract portion) should be part of a public debate?
Your argument appears to be, "citizens have a right to debate any change in law". This is trivially true.
It's also a rather dishonest point that you seem to have lifted from "Thank You for Smoking."
No one here is advocating that the government's monopoly on force be used to physically silence people who are pro-prop 8.
Instead, the argument is, "if private citizens call your contemptible behavior contemptible, don't pretend like they're violating your first amendment rights."
If the pro-prop 8 people want me to not think that their position is contemptible, they're free to give a non-contemptible justification.
This is just the marketplace of ideas at work.
Correction...marriage as we see it now has not been around for several thousand years.
Also, nothing is being redefined it is just expanding the rights to same-sex couples.
Thanks!
Oops I didnt mean to post that up there. Please ignore
Correction...marriage as we see it now has not been around for several thousand years.
Also, nothing is being redefined it is just expanding the rights to same-sex couples.
Thanks!
The only reason to be uncomfortable with the redefinition of marriage is homophobia. Gay marriage hurts no one, and it affects no one any more than an unmarried gay couple would. Beliefs have reasons, and when the only reason behind a belief is homophobia, then the belief is homophobic.
Furthermore, the fact that he would put his personal discomfort over the rights at best makes him deeply selfish. We're in a pluralistic society that requires putting up with things that makes us uncomfortable, even things that actually do affect us.
He's certainly entitled to be homophobic and selfish, but the people around him are also more than entitled to react to it.
Aren't there legitimate cultural conservatives out there who are simply uncomfortable with a redefinition of marriage?
Nope. In fact, I'm less bothered by overt bigots than cretins who attempt to reason their way around the issue, claiming they do not "hate" anyone.
I've been trying to figure out this time around why my reaction to Prop 8 has been so visceral. Naturally I'm outraged on behalf of my gay friends, but it's definitely more on a personal level.
I guess it's because I'm still disgusted on how we as a society put the institution of marriage on a pedestal, no matter how ridiculous the circumstances, how fleeting the courtship, how young the participants, or ultimately how long the marriage itself lasts before a good percentage end up in divorce.
As a single (as in, never been married) heterosexual woman in her mid-30s, I'm still a second class citizen to married folks in every respect. As the daughter of a woman who passed away two years ago, neither I nor my sister really had any say in the burial plans. In the eyes of the law, we also don't technically have a "right" to any assets. We assume this will happen eventually, but now our stepfather is getting married again, and to tell you the truth we have no idea how our mother's contributions will figure into the eventual asset division.
In the eyes of the law, heterosexual marriage both trumps blood relations for children, yet "defends" blood relations in the event of the death in a committed gay couple, even if the partner was ostracized from the family originally!
Proponents of Prop 8 argue that allowing gays to marry will destroy the foundation of "traditional" marriage. Good. It's time to make that default contract between you and the state a civil union nationwide, and banish the notion of marriage to individual church branches. Hell, even if you're not religious and still want to be known as a "married," any of your friends can download an ordination for Universal Life Church. ;)
Of course I have anecdotes: my "uncle," who has been with his partner since 1977, cannot legally enjoy marriage. Two of my other friends who had a whirlwind hipster courtship fueled by ecstasy (the drug) were recently married. As endearing as they are, they will probably put in about 4 good years and call it quits (in addition to other beloved friends who are already on their 2nd marriages). I have no problem with this, but we're supposed to celebrate the latter and admonish the former for *daring* to want the same.
Some voting for Prop 8 believe communities (and children!!) will suffer if we allow gay marriage. If you really wanted to place a value on partnerships, then technically the gay partnership of 30+ years will most likely have a greater benefit for a community than straight people who marry and divorce multiple times. Solid relationships regardless of gender are good for everyone. However, an enlightened person would also argue that redefinition of the term "family" is a positive change. For instance, remarriage often results in MORE GRANDPARENTS. How can you argue against this?
The sick obsession we as a society have with heterosexual marriage is damaging not only to gays, but to heterosexuals in certain situations. Many of the Prop 8 supporters are acting like defenseless victims; let's just hope they never have to endure other battles that are also directly related to the hierarchical status placed upon marriage currently.
"Say what you will about the institution, but it has been around for thousands of years"
The way it is right now, in the US? (In the 48 states in Nov. 2008 where gays cannot be legally married.) And why do you think this current form of marriage is its most highly developed or most desirable form?
People should stop pretending marriage is the same thing it has been "for thousands of years" or that it is the greatest thing. That's not what millions of divorcees or singles by choice believe. You wouldn't want to be married the way people were "thousands of years" ago.
I absolutely agree - and I voted against Prop. 8. My point is that marriage is to some extent a legal institution, so the laws surrounding it should be a matter of public debate.
Public debates tend to work better if no one is intimidated from stating their views.
There is one major problem with putting rights to the vote: who holds the majority? Will gays need to wait like African Americans to have their rights recognized by the public, and more importantly, respected?
How about the people who are intimidated by his views? No one wants to work with someone who wants to deny them rights--even if he didn't say anything outright homophobic (although I do believe a vote yes is inherently homophobic), gay people and allies could still be intimidated by him, knowing that he disapproves of an integral part of their lifestyle. Politics do not exist in a vacuum, political decisions have real ramifications.
again... I'm wondering why people are voting on issues concerning civil rights. It's like voting on if someone has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." How can that be put to a vote?
I don't get it.
Yeah, its ironic. It would be like using voting to determine whether to instate communism.
Oh wait... That did happen. But seriously. What up?
again... I'm wondering why people are voting on issues concerning civil rights. It's like voting on if someone has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." How can that be put to a vote?
I don't get it.
again... I'm wondering why people are voting on issues concerning civil rights. It's like voting on if someone has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." How can that be put to a vote?
I don't get it.
again... I'm wondering why people are voting on issues concerning civil rights. It's like voting on if someone has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." How can that be put to a vote?
I don't get it.
I agree.
It's as if people have taken, "I have a constitutional right to hold my on opinion" to mean, "I have a moral right to your respect."
He's free to believe whatever he wishes. He's free to express those beliefs.
I'm free to call him an asshole and to refuse to work with him.
This is the marketplace of ideas at work.
The irony in attacking anyone who supported Prop 8, is that this is sexual Mccarthyism. And it seems oppostion to Prop 8 is from those trying to impose their view of marriage on the rest of society. Those who voted for it are trying to defend marriage against such an attack.
This false analogy comparing sexual preference to one's ethnic identity cannot be left unchallenged. I wonder how long it will be before African American, Hispanics, Asian Americans start to realize they cannot accept such equivocation. You cannot compare the morality of sexuality to one's inherent ethnic make up.
I beg to differ. Homosexuality is easily hidden, at least to casual acquaintances, so homophobia is not the same as racism in that sense. However, homosexuality is biological and for many gay people impossible to change--you can marry straight, you can have straight sex, but you're still gay.
The effects of homosexuality and minority race status are very different, but in either case people hate the minority for something that they have no control over, and that has no real effect on them morally.
Nightingale is correct here, homosexuality is biological. You cannot decide who you love, if we could, there would be no heartbreak.
Also, people think that just because you can put people through "straight camps" they can become straight and be cured of "the gay." And people think this is a good thing. How does this connect to race? Hmm... oh yeah, all of the skin bleaching and lightening kits that have been around for centuries. The belief that being not white was wrong, and you could correct it by chemically altering your skin.
People who try to say you cannot relate prop 8 to interracial marriage say that just because they can't think of any other argument for it. They also say "blacks can't change the color of their skin, so interracial marriage can't be related because gays can become straight." Actually, look hard enough and you will find a kit that you can use to at least try and make their skin white. If you find this to appalling, why is the discrimination of same-sex marriage the right thing to do?
Oh. I see.
Now, supporters of prop 8 are the ones being "intimidated and harassed" because they deal in the natural, non-violent consequences of their behavior. Poor guy. Boo hoo.
I recently discovered that a high-ranking officer in my local police department contributed to supporting prop 8. This is in a state 2,000 miles away from California. The reason I know he's high-ranking is because he listed his rank, position and the name of the police department in his contribution.
Speaking of laws, shouldn't there be a law against this? Seriously. I'm not going to tell private citizens where to put their money, but to do this and list a taxpayer funded law enforcement agency with the donation seems really wrong and a little frightening.
If I get pulled over with a rainbow flag sticker on my car, who is really at risk for being "intimidated and harassed?" If there should be another expression of homophobia toward me or my friends coming out of our community center or gay bar, which is in a very conservative, mid-sized, midwest town, what level of support toward ending this hatred should we expect from our local police?
This accusation of intimidation and harassment just fries me.
I am against any threats of any kind from anyone on either side of this issue. It cuts both ways. Vandalism of a church or someone's property is not justified, nor is verbal harassment in someone's face. Anyone who acts violently to oppose what they see as a threat from gay activists is wrong, and gay activists are wrong to act in similar ways like storming a church and yelling obscenities in the presence of children.
This is transparent. I'm not biting today.
Frank Schubert will continue to make himself look like a fifth grader who ditched class on Constitution day if he wishes. Publicly making oneself look ignorant of a basic understanding of the First Amendment is not a good way to win a debate. A red herring argument on a blog comment is another poor debate style.
When you're interested in real discussion, it will show.
Prop 8 is unconstitutional because it imposes a belief that is primarily religious-based on a secular society.
I am very interested in people's responses to an earlier analogy. How would everyone feel about people in a very conservative community having someone expelled from their job because that person publicly donated money to a pro-choice organization, and the community didn't like it?
I suppose you can defend outrage at that but not this situation by just saying that our position is the right one and theirs is the wrong one. But I'm interested nonetheless.
Just so we're all clear...
Calling for a boycott of a business who don't say "Merry Christmas!" = Your moral obligation as a soldier fighting against the War on Christmas.
Other people calling for a boycott of your business because you supported Prop. 8 = Intimidation and a blatent infringement of your first ammendment rights.
Eckern was the artistic director of the theater. People expressed their desire to not have a boss who voted against their right to a civil marriage. How can you even equate that to violence or oppression? Everyone has the right to say what they think--it's called the first amendment. But part of having rights is accepting the responsibilities that come with those rights. Eckern has the right to give his money to whatever cause he wants. But he then has to accept the responsibility of acknowledging his donation and taking the fallout for it. No one beat him up, threw rocks at his home, or threatened him. People just said they didn't want to work with someone who donated money to a cause that went against their civil rights.
On the flip side, a person has the right to say, "I'm going to boycott such-and-such beacuse they donated to Planned Parenthood." Perhaps I don't agree with their position, but my disagreement with your opinion does not equal your lack of a right to hold it.
I disagree. First, saying I hate someone for the way they voted is wrong. It is just as wrong as saying you hate someone who is gay. Hate something they do (I hate that they voted x way) but not the people who voted.
Second, I do not feel that harassing someone or pressing them to be fired or removed for their political views is right (or for any reason other than they are not qualified). I would not want a liberal to be removed from a job because they are liberal and I do not want the reverse happening.
Yes, they voted wrongly. But that does not mean they are bad people just misguided. Debate them, give them information, teach. But don't stoop to their levels of harassment, pressure, and attacking. We must respect everyone, even those we disagree with.
"But he then has to accept the responsibility of acknowledging his donation and taking the fallout for it."
How would you feel if a company started to fire workers who said they supported worker's rights? You would be against that right? How is pressuring someone to be fired from their job for their political views any different? This goes beyond not wanting to support a company or person and actually causing them harm by trying to remove their livelihood based on their political belief.
Mr. Eckern chose to resign. From reading the article, I did not get the impression that he had been pressured to do so or that his resignation had been called for. This situation is not the same as a company firing workers for their beliefs. Mr. Eckern did not lose his job because of his beleifs. I obviously don't know the man, but his resignation apparently came because he didn't want to deal with the negative fallout from his political stand.
Again, he wasn't fired and no one called for his resignation. The most people did was to say they would not choose to work with him. That's not at all the same as being fired or pressured to quit.