Pages

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Prop 8: I’m Spartacus! No, I’m Scott Eckern!

After posting about this grand, Big Hollywood, conservative website reveal, we have spent some time browsing the archives there.  Very impressive, by the way.  Before too long, we came across this Prop 8 beauty.  Replete with full text Facebook letters from the instigator, and savvy commentary from the author (aka Spartacus/Scott Eckern), we recommend settling in for this eye-opening read which exposes the circumstances of Scott Eckern’s distressing demise.

I'm Spartacus! I'm Scott Eckern!


To set the tone, we here at Kingfisher would like to give our readers a small taste of the gay “rights” supporter’s “tolerance” and “reason” at work in this case. 

Susan Egan, instigator:

Letter #1, pre-resignation

“I personally do not wish for him to resign, but rather to
write a public apology for offending so many in this theatre world we
all share. I’d also love to see him donate another $1000 towards an
organization of his choosing that would attest to his commitment to
the gay and lesbian communities, which have contributed so much over
the years to CMT and SMC, and to him personally. To me – this is what
we should be asking for first.”

Letter #2, post-resignation

“…changing Scott’s mind about the proposition was never my goal. Informing the theatre community of how he uses his earned income was my goal.”

Read on.  If you think that’s bad, it’s not.  It’s much, much worse.


Prop 8: I’m Spartacus!  No, I’m Scott Eckern!


by Stage Right

That’s what I felt like yelling during last November’s horrifying public shaming of a theatre executive in California.  Scott Eckern, the Artistic Director of Sacramento Music Theatre, was forced to resign after the public revelation that he donated $1,000 to the Prop. 8 campaign.  I felt like calling all of my friends in the theatre industry and saying “I’M SCOTT ECKERN!”  I felt like responding to all of the e-mails I received from my colleagues urging me to join the drive to remove him from his post by saying:  “I’M SCOTT ECKERN!”  “If you take him, you should take me! ” Like all those slaves standing in solidarity with Spartacus.  I was also an executive in the industry with similar views.  There but for the grace of God….

But I didn’t stand up and shout.  I didn’t because I am a coward.  I didn’t because I have children and a mortgage and I might need the next job that comes along so I keep my mouth shut.

But make no mistake, there are many of us working in the theatre industry and the spectacle that was Scott Eckern’s ouster was terrifying and enraging to us.  Many readers of Big Hollywood suggest that as long as we are effective in our jobs and we “put butts in seats” then we should have the courage to speak out and fight for our beliefs even if we are a minority in a hostile environment….  I hope this morality tale speaks to you…

[Read more…]


Related Links:

Scott Eckern – Martyr for Prop 8
Martyr McGehee
Prop 8’s Collateral Damage: Tolerance

16 comments:

  1. Another one looses his job simply for donating to a political cause. Isn't this guy's support for Prop 8 his own business and know one elses? The "gay agenda" has become a political party dogma where emplyees are forced to support it. Shouldn't there be separation of employment and politics, just like a separation of church and state?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Another one looses his job..."

    He didn't lose (proofreading is your friend, not your enemy) his job, he resigned.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Daniel: He didn't lose ... his job, he resigned.

    Ah, I see. His resignation was all just a remarkable coincidence and not related to the fascist actions of the "theatrical community." He would have resigned, anyway. Sure.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "..fascist actions..."

    Spare me the melodrama. The "fascist actions" involved people expressing their displeasure at his donation (gasp! horror!).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Daniel: The "fascist actions" involved people expressing their displeasure at his donation

    Daniel, what is your full name and where do you work? I'm going to organize an email campaign to boycott your employer as long as you work there. Don't worry. I'm not trying to get you fired. That would be fascist. I'm just expressing my displeasure at your inept attempt at whitewashing.

    (gasp! horror!)

    Who's being melodramatic here? You know, thinking is your friend, not your enemy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I'm going to organize an email campaign to boycott your employer as long as you work there."

    I wouldn't exactly be overjoyed if you did this, but I would not consider it "fascistic."

    "Who's being melodramatic here?"

    You are.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Daniel, would you still not consider it fascist if you felt pressured to resign over it? That was just one letter, the initiator's. Many more people joined the rock-chucking until finally the target had enough cuts and bruises to last a life time and bowed out. Hope you're proud of yourself and what you are defending.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Daniel, would you still not consider it fascist if you felt pressured to resign?"

    Yes, I would still not consider it fascist.

    "Many more people joined the rock-chucking..."

    More melodrama. Publicizing someone's donation in favor of a proposition (letter #2) or asking (not demanding) that person to apologize for the donation (letter #1) is nowhere near the equivalent of throwing a rock at that individual.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Daniel: I wouldn't exactly be overjoyed if you did this, but I would not consider it "fascistic."

    The important question is whether you'd attempt to whitewash it as merely "people expressing their displeasure."

    You are.

    Third grade banter isn't making your whitewashing any less inept.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Daniel: Publicizing someone's donation in favor of a proposition (letter #2) or asking (not demanding) that person to apologize for the donation (letter #1) is nowhere near the equivalent of throwing a rock at that individual.

    Your whitewashing is getting even more desperate. Ms. Egan herself acknowledges in both letters that she is advocating a boycott, not just "publicizing someone's donation" or "asking (not demanding) that person to apologize."

    "I support Marc Shaiman in his boycott of CMT, and hope others will follow -- as ticket-buyers, writers, musical directors, crew, designers and performers and more."

    You know her actions are inexcusable. That's why you're trying so hard to pretend they didn't happen.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "You know her actions are inexcusable."

    Calling for boycotts is "inexcusable?" Not in my world.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Daniel: Calling for boycotts is "inexcusable?" Not in my world.

    Really? Never?

    I'm guessing whitewashing doesn't contradict your moral compass, either. Whatever you think about boycotting, it certainly is not just "publicizing someone's donation" or "asking (not demanding) that person to apologize," as you had attempted to pass off in your previous comment. For someone who's so up on boycotting, you sure tried to act like it never happened.

    ReplyDelete
  13. So if you run into an African-American who participated in the Montgomery bus boycott, are you going to rant on to criticize this person for their behavior; after all, if you think calling for a boycott is "inexcusable," the thought of a person actually PARTICIPATING in one must drive you bonkers.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Now you're just being dense. Boycotting a theater because they hired Mr. Eckern would be like boycotting the bus company because they hired a black driver. Can you honestly say you can't tell any difference between that and the Montgomery Bus Boycott?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Boycotting a theater because they hired Mr. Eckhern would be like boycotting the bus company because they hired a black driver."

    No, those two things,aren't alike. The basis for the boycott of the theater revolves around their displeasure of a behavior of Mr. Eckhern's (his donation to the Yes on Prop 8) campaign. The basis for the hypothetical boycott you gave revolves around NON-behavior (the color of the African-American bus driver's skin). Mr. Eckhern chose to give to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. The hypothetical African-American bus driver didn't choose the color of his skin. Geez, aren't you part of the same crowd that says criticism of homosexuality should not be compared to racism because the former involves choices and the latter does not?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Daniel: No, those two things,aren't alike.

    Daniel, thinking is your friend, not your enemy. Need I remind you it was you who said "Calling for boycotts is 'inexcusable?' Not in my world."

    Best not to choose different sides of the same issue in the same comment thread. It makes you look disingenuous or at least ill considered, or more likely, both.

    As it stands, I could have chosen a Jewish bus driver, a Catholic bus driver, or a "gay" bus driver. The point is not which boycotts are most different or even what those differences are, but that there are differences. That point you have just conceded to me.

    Previously, you tried to pass off all boycotts as just clean fun. Now you admit such blanket statements are false, all boycotts are not created equal so not all boycotts are "excusable." You just discredited your own whitewash attempt with your own words.

    ReplyDelete

This forum is open to anyone with a desire to express him/herself with respect, civility, and understanding. Please remember, therefore, that comments are not always reflective of the opinion of this website and its community. We reserve the right to delete any commentary or content, including, but not limited to, material that is obscene, profane, irrelevant, or otherwise inappropriate as per our discretion.