Artistic Director of California Music Theatre Apologizes for “Yes On Prop-8” Contributions- Page 4

[Neverandy]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 11:02am

You're the nitwit! Of course I took a history course. Did you ever learn to read? I said not necessarily Republican. Lincoln was republican. The Southern Democrats were the ones who were segregationists in the early and mid 20th century! I was talking conservative which, contrary to popular belief hasn't always been associated with the republican party!
How dumb can you get?

[FlyingMonkey1223]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 11:11am

How can we expect people to be nice to us when we can't even be nice to each other on a message board? The way people talk to each other on here is just horrible. Shameful actually.

[Neverandy]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 11:19am

The literacy level on this board(or lack of it) is sometimes staggering!

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 11:23am

How can we expect people to be nice to us when we can't even be nice to each other on a message board?

This has nothing to do with being nice.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 11:25am

In the 20th Century, the Republican and Democratic parties did a big ol switcheroo. This is a big reason why the Democratic South is now the Republican South. This is why the Democrats nominated a black man.

Lincoln and Barry Goldwater would be ashamed of their party today.

[sondheimgeek]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 11:33am

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.


Broadwayguy2, I did not say that marriage does not matter for you. I said for me personally, if I am at least with the person I love and not married, than life will be ok.

It's not uninformed, its an opinon. I understand the benefits from marriage. But to me health and loved ones are more important. I don't need the piece of paper to have a nice life.

[Lynnespock2]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 11:42am

While it's true that no one needs a piece of paper to be happy, when there are legal or health matters, that piece of paper could insure that the loved ones requests are fulfilled by the person who cares most about them.

We cannot know what the future holds for us, but marriage gives us legal as well as emotional security. It should be available for anyone who seeks it, no matter what as long as their of age to make their own decisions.

I think prop 8 is a terrible thing and those people who supported it are looking in the wrong direction to save the "sanctity" of marriage.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 12:45pm

Oh screw it, if people are going to fight me to the end, I can't do this. I don't care whether you call it marriage, civil union, whatever. I'm so apathetic about social issues it isn't even funny.

Btw, I don't care what people say: slavery in terms of moral issues and equality of the races was bipartisan. People who argue that the Republicans freed the slaves or that the Republicans then are the Democrats of today are just entirely unaware of the issues going on at the time.

Yes, the Civil War was about slavery, but it wasn't just the moral issue of "slavery is an abomination" versus "slavery is a paternal system." Most Northerners/Republicans only wanted to end slavery because they thought it gave unfair advantage to planters, not because they genuinely morally objected to it. In many ways, the North was more racist than the South because they had never even interacted with black people, for the most part. Or, they simply wanted to contain slavery to the south: not because of moral causes, but because they feared competition, again, and they were afraid that spreading slavery into the new territories would give Democrats more power. The abolitionists were seen as the religious crazies forcing their personal views on an entire nation. William Sherman is an example of a Union Republican officer who was pro-slavery. In the election of 1860, the Democratic party split: southern Democrats who wanted slavery in the new territories, and northern Democrats who supported Douglas and his idea of popular sovereignty. There were also several southerners who wanted to end slavery because they felt it was stagnating the South's progress.

Lincoln did not even emancipate slaves in the border states until after the war because he did not want to alienate them into secession.

Finally, 19th century Democrats were not today's definition of conservative. The 19th century Republican party and today's Republican party are very similar in many issues, so you can't just say that the two parties flipped. And many southern racists still vote Democrat. Like I said, it isn't as simple as one party being racist and the other not.

Also, Democrats might have nominated the first black president, but Republicans did put into office the first black secretary of state.

Updated On: 11/11/08 at 12:45 PM

[Neverandy]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 12:56pm

I never mentioned the Civil War. I mentioned slavery which was an issue in this country since before its inception. Of course the the Civil War was about a whole lot more than slavery. We can get into a States rights argument that was has been debated since the Articles of the Confederation. However, it is empirical that the "conservative" view in regards to slavery in the 19th century was very much anti-abolishment.

Updated On: 11/11/08 at 12:56 PM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 1:03pm

Sorry--I love the politics of the Civil War so I tend to ramble about it. I actually do think that slavery was the major issue, though the south tends to not want you to view it that way.

What I was trying to say is that the view of slavery as a moral issue was not widespread and even the "liberals" at the time (if you consider Lincoln to be one) who disliked slavery simply wanted it contained to the territories. Abolitionism was a very small minority, and like I said, they were viewed as the religious crazies forcing their views on people.

You also have to remember that there are different types of conservatives. Social conservatives are the issue here.

I just want to point out that all political parties have racism in them.

[whatever2]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 1:06pm

i went to bed after my last post last night, and i have to confess i'm surprised this thread is still here -- the tone was heating up, and i was sure someone would cross a line and the mods would delete.

in the interest of trying to share more light than heat, i thought i'd post this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/keith-olbermanns-prop-8-s_n_142862.html

at the end of the day, i dont care what the dominant culture wants to call my marriage of 23 years to another man -- i don't need them or anybody else to validate us. in fact, i guarantee you we could teach straight couples one helluva lot about marriage. but that's not what i want, either. all i want is the exact same set of (civil) legal protections every other married couple gets. if you can figure out a way to do that without resort to the M-word (and PS: no one has been able to yet), then rock on ... but, meanwhile, please shut up, stop telling me what you won't do, and start SHOWING me what you will do. until you do that, you're just adding to the hate -- the rest is semantics.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 1:08pm

Spork's messages kind of retiterate why it's unproductive to listen when people say "it's too soon, wait, etc." The point of the matter is, there will never be 100% widespread "acceptance" of same-sex marriage, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a right.

[Neverandy]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 1:09pm

Whatever-I linked that a few pages ago. It's brilliant!

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 1:27pm

Part of my responding here is because I can't stand that the religious right represents me as a conservative. True conservatives believe that the government should not have the ability to define marriage, or want government out of it altogether. Please don't lump all of us in together with the social conservatives, just like you probably don't want to be lumped in with the people in your party whose views on issues you can't stand.

Also, I'm sure some Democrats voted for this as well. I don't think it could have passed were it only Republicans. I could be wrong because I don't live in CA, but this is just a guess.

Updated On: 11/11/08 at 01:27 PM

[BWNUT]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 1:28pm

Bottom line is gays in CA already had the right to marry. Making a constitutional amendment to take away any civil or legal right from any group of people just because they're "different" is bigotry pure and simple.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 1:36pm

Spork, I've agreed with a lot of whiat you've said in here. I wish MORE people could make the distinction between conservatism and batsh*t christian conservatism.

[FlyingMonkey1223]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 1:45pm

It's the governments job to make sure people are protected ala the constitution, and since "marriage" rights are granted by the government, the government gets to say who can have them and who can't. There is no legal reason why gay couples can't get marriage licenses. The only thing standing in their way is religious hypocracy.

[Anastasia_Beaverhausen]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 1:50pm

California Musical Theater has made a statement:

"Any political action or opinion of Scott Eckern is not shared by California Musical Theatre. We have a long history of appreciation for the LGBT community and are truly grateful for their long-standing support. We acknowledge the dedication, patronage, and hard work of the many members of the LGBT community who have played a crucial role in our success. Our only mission is to present quality theatrical productions to enrich the cultural life of the community. "

If any of you know this company, you know this to be true. It is filled with wonderful people who love to do shows and I applaud them addressing this issue. I know this won't be good enough for some of you, but I know this is how the company feels and we should not judge them for one person's mistake. I have my own feelings about Scott Eckern and what he did (and they are not nice feelings) but my issue is with him, not CMT.

I will post this on the other threads as well.

[FlyingMonkey1223]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 1:59pm

If one boycots CMT they are hurting the entire organization, not just doody head. CMT is uber-gay anyways, and empoyees many gay actors in their show. However, I do believe people should complain about doody head to the point he decides to find work elsewhere.

[whatever2]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 3:29pm

i empathize with CMT's position, but the bottom line is they've got a bigot in a leadership position -- they need to deal with it. how on earth is this man going to manage his LGBT subordinates effectively ... his credibility with his co-workers is compromised beyond repair.

if this clown's name had shown up on a donor list for some white supremacist group, would there even be a conversation??? imagine if it became public that some a-hole in the head office of the yankees or the lakers had contributed to the national association for the advancement of white people -- think management would keep him around???

[whatever2]

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

oh -- and isn't an artistic director supposed to support an arts organization's fund-raising activities? can't wait to see how effective he's going to be in discharging that responsibility after this ...

he has a right to an opinion, but not to a job. he's damaged the organization, and the organization needs to protect itself.

buh-bye, scott ...

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 3:36pm

Do you guys actually WANT to cost him his job and potentially make him even more homophobic? Why not spend your energies trying to get him to have a change of heart?

[whatever2]

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

yeah, lizzie, you're probably right.

but, honestly? i am weary BEYOND WORDS at having to accommodate other peoples' ignorance. and now you're asking us to turn the other cheek when someone helps constitutionalize that ignorance?

it accumulates, ya know. call it lavender rage or something ...

i also really do think he's compromised his own ability to be effective beyond repair, so maybe he really should go.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 4:10pm

Umm, he actually does have the right to a job. I don't think they can legally fire him for this.

Think about it the opposite way: what if you worked for a place filled with homophobes and they fired you for donating to a pro-gay marriage cause?

(Ignore the fact that most of you probably would not work for a place like that. What if you really needed this job, or these homophobes pretty much made up the industry in which you wanted to work?)

Updated On: 11/11/08 at 04:10 PM

[whatever2]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 4:47pm

> um he actually does have a right to a job.

um, mebbe, mebbe not. if he has a contract, then, yes -- he does have a right to a job, pursuant to the terms of the contract. otherwise, employment in every one of these united states is "at will"; as long as it's not for a reason that is illegal under Federal, state, or local law, and (in most states) is done in compliance with any employer's employee handbook, then an at will employee can be terminated for any reason or no reason at all.

we could debate whether a termination here would for a prohibited reason (race, religion, age, or gender under Federal law ... all that plus a whole bunch of other crap under CA law), but absent a contract or a collective bargaining agreement, no one has a "right" to a job.

Updated On: 11/11/08 at 04:47 PM