Artistic Director of California Music Theatre Apologizes for “Yes On Prop-8” Contributions

[Craig]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 9:15pm

https://www.broadwayworld.com/l.cfm?id=227505

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 9:29pm

What were these "equal rights for all" to which he just donated a thousand dollars?

Perhaps a thousand bucks was just chump change to him, like when I give the guy on the street corner five bucks. Perhaps he really DIDN'T understand what he was donating one THOUSAND dollars to. So he's STILL a dumb ass, if you ask me.

[whatever2]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 9:40pm

his words make clear he knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he gave money to yes on 8 ... all his subsequent actions are just hollow attempts to avoid the fallout.

besides burning in hell for his actions (which unfortunately is not up to the theater community -- IMAGINE the production values if it were, though!), eckern no longer deserves to profit from the honest labor of the people he would persecute. he should be sacked for the controversy he has visited upon his employer and his profession.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 9:40pm

What a crybaby. Look how happy his thousand smackers made this lovely American family!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 9:58pm

So he's trying to buy exoneration with a thousand-dollar contribution to The Human Rights Campaign?

And then he thinks this unfortunate matter will just go away?

Like our marriage rights just went away.

I don't think so, Mr. Eckern. Grudgingly giving to the human Rights Campaign is not the same thing as showing respect for our human rights.

Try learning the difference.

[sondheimgeek]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 10:06pm

I completely support Shaiman and Egan in their efforts.

To be honest, maybe the term "marriage" isn't right for same-sex civil unions, but it's not about the title, it's about the rights. It's truly disrespectful to support a cause that denies human rights.

If Eckert is for proposition 8, then power to him, but I personally don't support it.

Updated On: 11/10/08 at 10:06 PM

[Craig]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 10:06pm

B3TA07

Actually - this is a new thread for a NEW news story that was started when the story broke.

If you prefer not to read or comment in this thread, you're more than welcome to ignore it :)

[Neverandy]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 10:18pm

this is the best most clearly thought out, impassioned arguement against proposition 8 i have seen. I would love to see Eckern's response!


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27652443#27652443

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 10:19pm

I read the note by the artistic director of CMT. Two words come to mind: hollow apology. He knew exactly what he was doing. Now, his organization will likely suffer the consequences because of his choice. from RC in Austin, Texas... (where Travis County voted FOR our new president-elect.) P.S. I can't believe that young person had the temerity to lecture Craig, one of our moderators, about a similar thread. What cheek!!

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 10:22pm

Seriously Craig. You post this but don't see anything wrong with accepting money from the Mormon church on this site?

Just delete it like it never happened/

[Craig]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 10:23pm

Seriously Bobby?

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?boardid=2&boardname=off&thread=983407#3695331

Updated On: 11/10/08 at 10:23 PM

[LuPonatic]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 10:29pm

What are the arguments against gay marriage. I haven't really heard a good one...

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 10:32pm

The Lord!
The children!
The butt sex!

That's all of them.

[jv92]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 10:36pm

SHAME ON YOU MR. ECKERN! This is, as Patti LuPone FANatic said, a very hollow apology indeed.

[whatever2]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 10:42pm

i didn't see where the BWW article named the organization that received his contribution. shame on whatever group took his "blood money" -- they should have told him to shove it up his ...

... oh, wait: straight boyz don't do that.

:)

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 10:45pm

It was the HRC. As a Patti LuPone Asthmatic, I am appalled!

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 10:52pm

I don't think he has anything to apologize for. He has the right to have a certain belief and support it, and people who disagree with him have the right to boycott his product and protest his actions. If he wasn't expecting this sort of backlash, he's clearly not up for political activism.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 10:53pm

MUCH too little.
MUCH too late.
FAR too insulting. Let alone this "apology" which I find nearly as insulting as his initial donation.
I hope that everyone takes note and refuses patronage and service to the company until this man is replaced.

[sondheimgeek]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 10:55pm

I have to agree with Spork here. Though I don't agree with Prop 8, he does have the right to oppose it. Nothing to be sorry for.

I think it's disgusting, sure. Human rights are human rights, but as long as I'm with the person that I love, then marriage is the least of my concerns.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 11:03pm

I beg to differ. telling a large group of people, many of whom you work closely with and rely upon, and let's face it, a LARGE percentage of SMC's artists and patrons, that they are undeserving of equal protections and treatment under the law, and then actively moving to enshrine it into constitutional law, is something that everyone must be held accountable for it. Yes, he has his rights. So do the rest of us, and clearly he lacks the respect for the rights of others. I respect someone's rights, until they infringe upon mine. Then I have the right to take a stand and defend myself.. and I will and am.

As far as marriage not mattering, I find that, no offense, to be a sadly uninformed answer. Take an hour or two and look up the more than 1400 rights that are bestowed upon you with the right to marriage, not to mention the right of equality. marriage matters infinately.

[LizzieCurry]

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

i didn't see where the BWW article named the organization that received his contribution.

I didn't either. That was some of the sloppiest, vaguest wording I've ever seen in something purporting to be journalism.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 11:09pm

See, I don't view marriage as a civil right. Civil rights involve legal changes. I know that marriage gives legal rights, so then let them be given to civil unions (which should be legal for heterosexuals and homosexuals) and let marriage be left for the religious ceremony.

[Liza + Jesus = Patti]

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

"I respect someone's rights, until they infringe upon mine."

Couldn't someone AGAINST gay marriage say the same exact thing to you?

what did those four Judges do in 2000, when they decided to not let California vote, and decide all by themselves? Weren't they imposing their own views on the state (in an extremely biased situation)??

Tit for tat.

there;'s a counter response for every stance.

let's not be hypocritical, please.

[Liza + Jesus = Patti]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 11:12pm

"See, I don't view marriage as a civil right. Civil rights involve legal changes. I know that marriage gives legal rights, so then let them be given to civil unions (which should be legal for heterosexuals and homosexuals) and let marriage be left for the religious ceremony."

Spork. I agree.


Marriage is defined to serve the public interest, not private special interests or civil rights. Marriage is a public institution, not a mere private arrangement to bind romantic interests.

The law allows many private relations organized and defined as the private parties wish, but the institution of marriage between a man and a woman exists and is protected by law to promote fundamental social needs, including the perpetuation of society as well as the necessary link between husbands and wives and between parents and children for critical social needs. Not civil rights

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

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

Oh, stuff it. That's not a stance. Answer how it infringes.

If I marry my boyfriend, straight people still get to stay married.

Answer how it infringes on straight people.