California Musical Theatre's no win situation?

[morosco]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 2:53pm

Will subscribers choose to voice their stance on Proposition 8 by not renewing?
CMT Looks Ahead After Director's Resignation Over Prop 8 Donation

[Shawk]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:02pm

This is all so unfortunate, on so many levels. SMC puts on great shows, and I hope they can continue to do so.

[tourboi]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:05pm

I think now that he's gone, things will die down and SMC will continue doing the good work they do.

[jaystarr]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:06pm

Oh god! I HATE opening a link with message board attached. I cant really stand reading this crap!

Hi Cafebrunch! I too am a Christian and I honestly don't feel that my voting Yes on 8 was an act of hate. The act of hate is being demonstrated to us today in the very acts of vandalism and unpeaceful demonstrations around Sac. I have many friends who are gay or lesbian and they know that I don't hate them, that I love them! I see scripture being misused in that GOD states that marriage shall be between a man and a woman. Read Romans 1 for how He feels about the sin of homosexuality. Now, before you all get in a dither, remember this: All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God (Rom 3:23). All. You. Me. All. So, HE, in the greatest act of love ever, sent HIS SON to die on the cross for me. You. All. And He rose again (John 3:16). While we were yet sinners HE did this. THIS is love. And then it goes on in Rom 8:1: There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Love does not mean that we continue to embrace sin. Nope. Jesus didn't. He loved the sinner, but not the sin. When your kids misbehave, or your loved ones disappoint you, to you hate them or their actions? It is possible as shown by Him, to separate the two. My boys, Lord bless them, are not perfect and need correction at times and do at times, disappoint me. I love THEM, but not the action (or as is often the case, the inaction...). So. Have a great day!
11/13/2008 11:01


Duh! However you slice it~ITS AN ACT of HATRED!!! (***eyes rolled**) and please dont quote me your bible~what happened to the separation of State & Church?????

J*
Updated On: 11/13/08 at 03:06 PM

[FlyingMonkey1223]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:09pm

I love how biased the story is. Straight people were calling boycott too, not just the gays. He can have any political and civil right opinion he wants. He can, legally, donate to anything he wants to. However, on the same wave length supporters of CMT can either renew or not renew based on what they know about the artistic director, and actors and touring shows can choose to perform or not perform at venues where Scott works. CMT is a not-for-profit organization, so donations are important to them. Since the majority of those who contribute to CMT are gay or gay-friendly, these 50 or so supporters of Scott won't really make much difference.

I think he did what was best for CMT.

And those who voted YES on 8 don't see it is hate. I wouldn't really label it as hate either, more like ignorance and bigotry. People were saying this kind of crap when they would try to keep black people from being desegregated. They felt it wasn't about hate, they already have their seperate but equal schools, restaurants, bus sections, drinking fountains..."how was this not equal?" was the question in their mind. They saw their discrimination as keeping tradition, just like the YES on 8 people do.

Updated On: 11/13/08 at 03:09 PM

[Shawk]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:10pm

It's interesting how people in the comments, which I made the mistake of looking at, are acting as he were fired, which would be an entirely different situation.

[ChicagoPLAYer]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:22pm

When the Board of Directors holds an "emergency meeting" Tuesday night and then someone "resigns" Wednesday morning, someone has been FIRED.

[antonijan]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:22pm

If they do RENT in the round for Music Circus, I will definitely come back in a jiffy :)

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:25pm

When the Board of Directors holds an "emergency meeting" Tuesday night and then someone "resigns" Wednesday morning, someone has been FIRED.

Wasn't that meeting actually canceled?

[jaystarr]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:31pm

I posted this at OT: I hope this does not become a WITCH HUNT of some sort of! The only thing we can do right now is to be involved! PROTEST and GO OUT! There's a NATIONWIDE PROTEST PROP 8 on Saturday Nov. 15

Click here:
http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/

Join us in the PROTEST PROP 8 and Do not boycott theaters or theater company! Do not punish actors, directors, designers and so forth because of one person's mistake. Dont let anger, frustration and disapointment consume you-were better than that!

SUPPORT THE THEATER and GO OUT on Nov. 15 and be heard!

J*
Updated On: 11/13/08 at 03:31 PM

[FlyingMonkey1223]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:34pm

He got what was coming to him, fired or not. You don't get to make money off of the work of gay people and then stab them in the back without them throwing a fit.

Those people who are rallying FOR Scott with their signs probably voted YES on 8, and I can only imagine how many of them are Mormon.

[morosco]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:37pm

SUPPORT THE THEATER and GO OUT on Nov. 15 and be heard!

Agreed. Folks should consider printing the phrase "gay dollars" onto their paper money.

[Anastasia_Beaverhausen]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:45pm

He was not fired, nor was he asked to resign and I know this for an absolute fact.

He uderstood that as long as he was there, the company would suffer. Some authors would not let their shows be performed there, and many actors/directors and other artistic people would not work there as long as he was there. That is why he resigned. And although this whole mess is terrible, he was looking out for the company and I applaud him for that.

It's very funny how the yes on 8 folks (aside from quoting the bible again and again...and only the parts they choose to recognize) are angry at us gay people saying we are not being tolerant and we all want respect and equal rights but we are not giving them to Scott Eckern. My question now is...so you know what we want, clearly, but you still voted yes on 8. Why?

[Anastasia_Beaverhausen]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:48pm

And yes, it is a no win situation. Either he stays (and the no on 8 people boycott) and no one auditions for Music Circus this summer or he goes (and the yes on 8 people boycott) and leaves a company he supposedly loves and people he supposedly cares about.
Updated On: 11/13/08 at 03:48 PM

[mafiadiva2]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:50pm

The emergency meeting was cancelled. Scott made the decision on his own accord. I think it was a prudent business decision made out of a desire to protect the company, but I hope the removal of this proverbial thorn does not give anyone a false sense of a victory towards human rights.

i was thinking about this on the train last night...

What we do, the dramatic arts as a whole...it couldn't exist without conflict...and when you look to Shakespeare, comedy and tragedy are the classic treatments used to approach conflict
(and when i say comedy i mean in the 12th night sense, not haha funny, but a series of polarities, disparities, miscommunications, misinterpretations that once deciphered lead to greater understanding and a happy ending. Unfortunately, instead of turning this conflict into a forum for free discussion that may have benefitted all involved the masses immediately went and slaughtered the antagonist, thus treating the situation in the tragedian sense...so ultimately no one gets better, no one emerges completely victorious....Scott is not going to have his eyes and heart opened, people who loved him in his role as AD are going to miss him, and ultimately....his firing does not fix the ACTUAL PROBLEM: The gay community is still stigmatized; Prop 8, like it or not has passed, and Scott is by no means the only person who made that happen.

I must admit that while I do find Scott's decision to endorse such a repugnant and reprehensible proposition incredibly hurtful and disappointing, I am saddened by this enormous blow to the theatre community of Sacramento. I hope that the theatre community bolsters around the CMT at a time when it needs them most, supporting them as the enter a new chapter of making great theatre that (to riff on Susan Egan's soundbite) "holds a space" for everyone.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:55pm

posted some of this on a thread that (i guess) got "disappeared" (or at least i couldn't find it by searching).

They do appear "damned if they do, damned if they don't" if the readers responding to the first Sacramento Bee article (25 webpages of responses by day before yesterday, haven't checked since) are true to their word...the majority threatening to boycott if Eckern leaves (not many specific on how he might leave). It's one tough dilemma.

The other point i asked about...does anyone know the reasoning of why the Cali law that someone who has to list their name because their donation is that high, ALSO has to list their employer and position? it just seems a bit Big Brother-ish to me. If the idea is transperancy in donations (trying to insure somehow that big corporations are not influencing or lobbying unduly in the process). There seems like there has to be a better way, if there is a state limit of an individual donation, that they could forensically trace any multiple contributions or something?

do other states require the employment designation on contributions of that size or more?

[Shawk]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 4:07pm

I think it's a federal requirement to list occupation and employer for PAC donations.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 4:13pm

maybe someone more politically active knows for sure? i tried to quickly Google and AskJeeves but way too many variables. It's quite interesting to me. i'm all for transperancy, but the practice does tend to associate your personal beliefs with your employer's.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 4:40pm

I gave $5 to the Obama campaign and they asked for the name of my employer.

[Shawk]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 5:23pm

PACs have federal and state restrictions, so it can certainly be complicated. I believe that PAC regulations were started to prevent union dues from being used for lobbying purposes, but I'm not an expert on PAC requirements and history.

Updated On: 11/13/08 at 05:23 PM

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 5:35pm

$5 is about relative to what i could give given how my employer pays me! but there are a LOT of fringe benefits.

[erinrebecca]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 6:26pm

Political donations have these requirements. Have fun looking at this:

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/