Mormons. The theater. Two great tastes that do not seem to taste great together.
(Note to Mr. Whitless: I luuuuuuuuurve your musical. And your blog. I would love the latter so much more if it had permalinks, though.)
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Megan, you know better than that - as someone with Wayne County family you know about the Hill Cumorah Pageant! Mormon musically goodness! Cast of Hundreds!
Why is this acceptable?
If this guy were Muslim, would anybody be applauding the pressure being put on this man for having the "wrong" political views?
kaybeel:
The Mormon Church really hates the idea of gay people for some reason. Plenty of Muslims hate Teh Gay as much as Mormons do, judging from the public beheadings of people charged with the crime of Homosexuality in Saudi Arabia. Michael Moore, who AFAIK is fat, is against this. Dan Savage is too. It doesn't appear as though the Muslim Church specifically spent a boatload of money to oppose Prop 8, but perhaps you could do a little sleuthing to find out for sure. Good luck!
Looks like you missed this, Megan:
"Welcome to Whitless, the homepage of Jeff Whitty. This is not a blog. This is my seven-plus-year-old personal website, of the sort they had in the olden days."
ed-
There is no indication this man hates the idea of gay people. He works with them, he supports their arts, and he apparently did not discuss his religion or political leanings at work. Nobody knew.
Yet because he made a certain political decision, he is being ostracized at work.
That shouldn't be acceptable.
Would you support the idea of co-workers hounding a gay man for being against Prop 8?
ed: I'm sure you think you know a lot about Mormons. I can assure you that you do not.
Mr. Whitless calls the distinction between civil unions and marriage a "weird and tiresome semantic argument". If the difference between civil unions and marriage is just a semantic one, then why do homosexuals care about marriage in a state where they already have civil unions? If they were honest with themselves, they would admit that they want society's "seal of approval" by obtaining the same recognition and labeling as heterosexuals, even if they already have all the civil rights.
Such a seal of approval, of course, would be a value judgment, just as it is a value judgment to say that homosexual relationships are inferior. If homosexuals frame the debate as war of competing value judgments, however, they lose. That's why they posture about "rights" even when rights have nothing to do with it.
ed: I'm sure you think you know a lot about Mormons. I can assure you that you do not.
Well, about all I do know about Teh Mormons is from a Very Special Episode of South Park, so that could either be a lot or a little. I do know that the church did spent a considerable amount of money to get the loathsome Prop 8 passed (apparently they have a ton of dough on hand). I'm sure there are many, many Mormons who opposed this measure, but that's what the church did.
Will this type of activity (hounding out apostates) endeer society to the notionof gay rights?
I can just imagine the adverts the next time this comes to a vote:
Buildings were vandalized.
Careers ruined.
Threats made.
Vote for gay marriage . . .
If you know what's good for you.
/end advert
I cannot see this as being constructive. They could be promising free ponies and a life-time supply of hay and oats, and I'd vote against them if they used tactics like this.
Well, that was fast. Scott Ekern resigns.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Scott-Eckern-Releases-Statement-Announces/story.aspx?guid=%7B05F4A0A1-84FA-496A-92EF-2B418ADB1CC2%7D
There's that chill wind blowing through the arts community.
I am not sure about that theory of competing value judgments.
I think if the yes-on-8 crowd went out and simply stated, "homosexual relationships are inferior. This is why they cannot get married" it would not help their cause at all.
In my circle of close friends are two couples, both gay, who have been together for over 20 years each. Do you really think it is a winning argument to claim that these 2 couples with 20 years of monogamy each are "inferior" to those held by the likes of Britney Spears and Kevin Federline? The institution of marriage is threatened more by the likes of people like New Gingrich who get married, cheat on their wives, dump them for someone younger, then do it all over again. What is he on? Wife number 3? And Guiliani? These are the SUPERIOR relationships that earn these people the right to marry while many people who actually believe in long-term commitment and monogamy cannot?
People who represent major organizations are generally expected to have some sort of political sense and not offend potential and existing customers and colleagues. This was just a bone-headed move that one would be expected to resign over.
Well, that was fast. Scott Ekern resigns.
Kind of the opposite of the No on 8 ad that showed Mormons going through a gay person's house and ripping up the marriage license.
A gay person went through Ekern's political donations and ripped up his employment.
This shouldn't be acceptable. I support gay marriage, but this is bad. Gay people would rightly be furious if this were a Mormon entertainer forcing out a gay person for voting no on 8.
If the difference between civil unions and marriage is just a semantic one, then why do homosexuals care about marriage in a state where they already have civil unions?
It's not semantic because civil unions are treated differently under the law than marriage. Civil unions in California do not enjoy the same rights and taxation as marriages in California.
Gay people would rightly be furious if this were a Mormon entertainer forcing out a gay person for voting no on 8.
Or Mormons threatening to ex-communicate members for not working for the Yes On 8 campaign, donating money to it and voting No on 8. Oh wait, that's exactly what they did.
He used his freedom of speech, and there are consequences. You only have a right to have no consequences as a result from your speech from the government, not from your peers.
This is not "Mormons & the Theatre don't get along" this is "gay activists and freedom of speech don't get along". Given that they are in San Francisco, and that even smart free speech advocates like Megan don't seem to be picking up on the free speech aspect, free speech will probably loose.
@JordanT:
Or Mormons threatening to ex-communicate members for not working for the Yes On 8 campaign, donating money to it and voting No on 8. Oh wait, that's exactly what they did.
You are going to have to show some proof on this one. I voted against 102 in AZ and felt no pressure from the church to vote yes. In fact, a letter from our Presidency showed that there could be some nuance. So I'm sure that if there were threats of ex-communication then someone with some authority should know about it to take care of it. That is unless you feel that you should protect your sources.
Tyler - read the post above you. Free speech doesn't mean you are free from criticism, boycotts, etc. It means you are free from government restrictions on speech. Mr. Ekern's donation was constitutionally protected speech in that the government can't prohibit it. The gays criticisms, threats of boycotts and actual boycotts are also constitutionally protected.
Or Mormons threatening to ex-communicate members for not working for the Yes On 8 campaign, donating money to it and voting No on 8. Oh wait, that's exactly what they did.
If that truly happened, doesn't that give you more sympathy for this man?
Gay people have worked hard to have protections against losing their jobs because they are gay, or are gay activists.
Turning around and doing the same to someone who disagrees with them is horrible.
The guy who discovered it could have just, you know, talked to him, instead of passing along his information to Perez Hilton.
Why should the gay theater community shovel money to someone who uses that money to strip them of their rights?
You can't be pro-gay and anti-gay marriage.
@ JordanT
California tax laws apply identically to civil unions and marriages. Check yer facts.
@ Ed (and anyone else who keeps saying the LDS Church paid for all of this):
The LDS Church spent essentially $0 on this campaign. The only money that was spent by the LDS Church itself was for airfare for a couple of folks to meet with campaign officials. The MEMBERS of the LDS Church--almost all of whom were in California, and using funds that were never given to the Church, and thus not "tax exempt"--paid for this.
In short, the Mormon Church did not pay for 8. The Mormons paid for 8. There may be no difference in terms of perception, but there is a huge difference in terms of interpreting tax-exempt statuses and claims that "non-californians" were paying for it all. (fyi, the No campaign received far more out-of-state $$ than the Yes campaign).
If a private organization, pressured by Mormon activists, had an emergency meeting to determine whether to fire or merely punish an employee who had contributed to the "no on 8" campaign this would be the biggest non-national security related free speech story of the last few years.
And no one would argue that it wasn't a free speech story, either.
Why do you assume that the theater was having an emergency meeting just to "punish" the employee? Don't you think they were a bit more concerned with the public relations fiasco that he caused? From what I understand there was never any move to fire him, just to figure out how not to see theater go down the tubes.
FYI - The Yes on 8 campaign did send out letters in California to businesses that had contributed to No on 8, asking them to contribute 10K to Yes on 8 or be publicly named as being "anti-family." Not covered as a Free Speech issue, because it wasn't.
Why do you assume that the theater was having an emergency meeting just to "punish" the employee? Don't you think they were a bit more concerned with the public relations fiasco that he caused? From what I understand there was never any move to fire him, just to figure out how not to see theater go down the tubes.
FYI - The Yes on 8 campaign did send out letters in California to businesses that had contributed to No on 8, asking them to contribute 10K to Yes on 8 or be publicly named as being "anti-family." Not covered as a Free Speech issue, because it wasn't.
And no one would argue that it wasn't a free speech story, either.
I would, because free speech relates to government interactions, not the interactions of private individuals. I get tired of people claiming that their speech should not ever hold consequences with private people.
California tax laws apply identically to civil unions and marriages. Check yer facts.
US Law doesn't, check yer facts.
Why should the gay theater community shovel money to someone who uses that money to strip them of their rights?
Because they understand the importance of allowing people to keep their jobs, even when they hold a different opinion than their employer. It's what gay rights activists have fought for for themselves for years.
They could have treated Ekern the way they want to be treated. They chose not to.
JordanT,
Prop 8 wouldn't change that - so it is kind of a moot point.
@ Jordan T
First you said:
Civil unions in California do not enjoy the same rights and taxation as marriages in California.
I said:
California tax laws apply identically to civil unions and marriages. Check yer facts.
You then said:
US Law doesn't, check yer facts.
Umm...yeah. That's why I said, "California tax laws..." We're talking about California laws (at least that's the only thing that makes sense to talk about, since Prop 8 doesn't change Federal Laws).
Yer need to stick with one set of laws. Don't argue California laws with Federal justification.
"You can't be pro-gay and anti-gay marriage."
---This just in: left wing advocates once again going hardline. Everyone who disagrees even slightly with extreme left wing thought is evil. You're either with us or your against us, you bigoted, evil capitalistic straight white male religious pig! Take your Jesus and your nuclear family and your lack of therapy and your happiness with life and your stable relationships and your love and go to hell! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!
Prop 8 wouldn't change that - so it is kind of a moot point.
How so? The federal government doesn't marry people, and has no constitutional authority to do so. So, if you want to file married they check with whether or not you are married in the state, not married with the federal government. It does bring up an interesting states rights question. Secondly, since Alabama just passed a law that "unmarried couples" couldn't adopt, they would be forced to allow gay married couples from out of state to adopt. You don't lose your marriage if you move out of state either. If a California civil union doesn't stay in California, you lose all rights.
Yer need to stick with one set of laws. Don't argue California laws with Federal justification.
I never mentioned only California laws, and since the laws of California and the US apply to all the people of California, it's dishonest to not talk about both.
How so? The federal government doesn't marry people, and has no constitutional authority to do so. So, if you want to file married they check with whether or not you are married in the state, not married with the federal government. It does bring up an interesting states rights question. Secondly, since Alabama just passed a law that "unmarried couples" couldn't adopt, they would be forced to allow gay married couples from out of state to adopt. You don't lose your marriage if you move out of state either. If a California civil union doesn't stay in California, you lose all rights.
There are so many things wrong with that paragraph--legally, factually, other-lly--that I honestly can't even think about where to begin. Help.
@ JordanT
I never mentioned only California laws, and since the laws of California and the US apply to all the people of California, it's dishonest to not talk about both.
Okay, you can be right. We--those who actually understand the laws in question--will agree to surrender.
"Everyone who disagrees even slightly with extreme left wing thought is evil..."
BasicFact, please take a deep breath, and then explain what it is about being against discrimination that is "extreme left wing".
Scott, I'm curious. If the determination of whether a person is married or not is made under state law, how is it relevant that the different treatment of those who share civil unions is not a matter of state law? Those who are not married are treated differently, and the state has determined that they may not be married.
JordanT:
It's not semantic because civil unions are treated differently under the law than marriage. Civil unions in California do not enjoy the same rights and taxation as marriages in California.
Wrong. Civil unions in CA have all the rights of marriage that California can give. And it doesn't matter whether you call it a civil union or a marriage, the Federal DoMA prohibits the Federal Government from giving any of the benefits of marriage to same sex couples, even if their State says they are married.
Even the 4 judges who invented the right to SSM agreed that Civil Unions have all the rights of marriage that the State can give.
I do love the tolerance being displayed by the SSM supporters here. I shall remember it the next time someone on the Right is accused of being intolerant, and compare.
So it's good to know that "getting someone fired for holding the wrong beliefs, and engaging in political activity in favor of them" is tolerant behavior.
The S. Ct. did not decide that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional because CA domestic partnerships have slight differences in terms of formalities, benefits, etc. from marriage. It is unconstitutional because the right to marry is a fundamental right that cannot be satisfied by some separate-but-equal statutory class. Separate is inherently unequal.
If anyone doubts this, check with any gay person in California. See if they feel equal.
Oh noes! Mormons Resigning Despite Strong Heritage, Citing 'Hatred' by LDS Church.
If anyone doubts this, check with any gay person in California. See if they feel equal.
As gay native Californian, I feel equal, always have felt equal and always will feel equal despite the vote on Proposition 8. I don't need a stamp of approval from you or the government. The response by hysterical No on 8 supporters to the loss at the polls is disturbing. As the successful effort to deny Ekern his job demonstrates, they are now engaged in a witch-hunt. How quickly they have forgotten the past.
I voted for Prop 8, and like Bill Jones I don't believe that Prop 8 is the ruin of gay Californians.
However, I don't know if I have a problem with this response to Ekern. If Whitless and others genuinely believe that Ekern worked to take away what they regard as a constitutional right, then why should they continue to collaborate with him in matters of business and art? I work with people I disagree with all the time, but I do my best to avoid working with people that I consider repugnant and who I believe are working to hurt me. As someone else said, Ekern must be free from government interference with his speech. The rest of us are under no obligation to look the other way if we find him repugnant.
Sorry - I should have said ask any gay Californian if they have equal rights under California law because they can obtain a domestic partnership that comes with 95% of the California rights/resposibilities that marriage affords.
Even if this were 100%, the answer would be no. Separate is inherently unequal.
"BasicFact, please take a deep breath, and then explain what it is about being against discrimination that is "extreme left wing"."
----Once again, extreme left winger, seeing this as "discrimination" is a typical hard left tactic/distortion. Everything that remotely impacts a left wing movement in your eyes is "discrimination," whether that be "homophobic," "sexist," or the all holy grail of "racist." Just present your group as minority and oppressed, and that what they want is a basic "right. "
Since you define a "right" as "anything that we want that's in our agenda" without any logic of where that "right" comes from, you are laughable. If only so many other people didn't equate what they wanted with a right, we could toss your argument away. Unfortunately, many of the hard left suffer from this self-centered delusion.
Your argument, in a nutshell:
Marriage is a right.
Marriage is between two people.
Gays are two people.
Therefore, gays should be able to get married.
Easily countered with:
Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. We can decide who receives that privilege.
or
Marriage is between a man and a woman, not just two people. See: the history of marriage since the fall of Rome.
Your other argument:
Gays are a minority, just like blacks.
Gays are gay from birth/biology.
Miscengination laws banning interracial marriage were wrong.
So laws banning gay marriage are wrong.
Countered with:
Gays are minorities because of behavior, not by skin tone.
All sexuality, is not permanent, but malleable; it is not inherent.
Race and gender are caused by birth/biology.
So equating gays with interracial marriage is wrong.
Also, the 13th-15th Amendment specifically was passed for the benefit of blacks, not gays (this is the dissent's mindset in Lawrence v. Texas).
So application to gays is incorrect.
And, federally, there is no legal basis for saying that denying homosexual marriage is illegal.
Marriage is therefore a moral choice.
Morally, people can find homosexualty good or bad or in between.
So people can define marriage via their morality.
And they did.
But for you, it's either you're an enlightened tolerant diversified liberal or your evil bigot, backwards and redneck (and of course white straight Christian male); except those minorities who agree with us, who are "traitors to their race/sex/sexual inclination" or "Uncle Toms."
Now go off and pass your truly discriminatory hate crime legislation and then wonder why no agrees that your totalitarian social engineering fails to create the Utopia you hoped for.
Mormons and the theater: I recall reading that one thing of the first things the early Mormons did when they founded Salt Lake City was build a theater. So these two great tastes may go better together than most people would think.
"Do you really think it is a winning argument to claim that these 2 couples with 20 years of monogamy each are 'inferior' to those held by the likes of Britney Spears and Kevin Federline?" Nylund
TR: On some level I'm sympathetic to the argument "civil marriage is already stupid and riiculous for many couples now, so why not open it to some people who'd find it meaningful?" As a Catholic I do believe in the meaninglessness of civil marriage. This is a belief I've put into practice. (I paid for a divorce because it was a civil marriage, I'd never do that with a real marriage.)
Still not everyone is Catholic and even if I think civil marriage is meaningless society doesn't work that way. Society does place civil marriage as meaningful, even "woke up in a Vegas hotel married" civil marriage. Besides that the premise in some of these comparisons is that gay people are more virtuous than straight people and I don't think that makes sense.
If heteros have farcical marriages that last a month then in time gay couples will as well. Gay people are as capable of drinking alcohol and doing stupid things as straight people. So they'll have their own K-Feds, or whatevers, in time.
There have been monogamous gay couples in times past who did not think of getting married. So they're only being "denied" something that they mostly didn't even conceive of 30 or 40 years ago. The idea of interracial marriage is as old as the concept of race. Still there are good reasons for it too. I'm often on the fence here. I've leaned against of late because I think people want this way too fast based on emotional appeals and bad analogies. I think it's not bad to take time to think about whether it's a good idea. Voters of California saying no should be seen as an opportunity, for the pro-side, to learn where their weak areas are in the state's populace and where they need to educate people. Taking it as "Bash the Mormons" and "Let's fire dissenters" is probably not helpful.
Let me restate that in case it was confusing. (I'm mediocre at grammar)
"The idea of interracial marriage is as old as the concept of race. That issue aside there are good reasons for same-sex marriage too. I'm often on the fence here. I've leaned against SSM of late because I think people want this way too fast based on emotional appeals and bad analogies. I think it's not bad to take time to think about whether it's a good idea. Voters of California saying no should be seen as an opportunity, for the pro-side, to learn where their weak areas are in the state's populace and where they need to educate people. Taking it as "Bash the Mormons" and "Let's fire dissenters" is probably not helpful."
Soooo, Scott Eckern is repugnant because he thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman?
Can we admit that there is a difference between this and someone who plays 'smear the queer'? I'm pretty sure that Mr. Eckern would actively try to stop the latter.
Fair enough. I disagree with the political stances of the UAW. Now I don't feel guilty about saying "screw their bailout" and watching the sad waifs of the Rust Belt descend into cannibalism. Thanks, angry gays!
Jordan-
Civil unions in California do not enjoy the same rights and taxation as marriages in California.
I've always called it a "money-grab".
Justify your position to this always "single", no kids, 44 yr old hetero who does not support-
1)"spousal insurance for employees",
2)different tax brackets for "marriages",
3)and/or "survivor benefits" in Socialist InSecurity.
I can wish to marry my mother to collect her "widow's pension", and then I'll (hopefully) f@ck a cute 14 yr old one day before my death... in exchange for said cutie collecting my 'survivor benefits' for the next 50+ yrs.-- yet I don't see a 'discrimination' case.
I also want 100% Gay support when I walk into my boss' office and ask for a $5K raise, because that is the unmentioned health insurance (co-pay) benefit my company offers to "couples" vs. "singles" in similar jobs.
And anyone bitching about a "marriage penalty" (solely due to 'progressive' taxation) is quite welcome to calculate their taxes as "married, filing single"- and you'll get to pay the same rate as I do...
Half-Canuck, since I am the only other person on this post to use the word "repugnant" (at 5:17PM PST), I'll assume you are responding to me?
I did NOT call Ekern "repugnant". If you read my post carefully, you will see that I voted the same way that he did on Prop 8 (though I gave not a cent to the cause). However, I concede that some people might well think me (along with Ekern) a bad person for my views/vote and ostracize me accordingly. I do not begrudge them that right, and I reserve it for myself for other circumstances.
On the other hand, maybe you weren't addressing me.
Oops, I guess I made the post at 5:17 EDT. Didn't look at it too closely. I guess we're all on Megan's Time.
Loll,
Fine, You're deluded, but fine, let's pretend you're right. Let's pretend that society refusing to rewrite the definition of marriage in order to avoid hurting the feelings of 1 - 3% of the population counts as "not treating gays equally under the law."
So what?
When was it that We The People added a Constitutional Amendment that required equal treatment based upon sexual orientation? The 14th Amendment didn't even give women the right to vote (that was accomplished by the 19th Amendment). It didn't require that women receive equal treatment under the law (thus the push for the ERA in the 60's - 70's). (This, BTW, is a good thing. Since "separate isn't equal" would mean all bathrooms and locker rooms would have to be unisex.)
So if the Constitution doesn't require equal treatment based upon sex, on what possible grounds do you claim it requires equal treatment based upon sexual orientation?
(Note, CA has single sex bathrooms, so clearly there's nothing in its Constitution that requires equal treatment under the law WRT sex.)
So much for tolerance. I notice that they are going after the "easy" target. But until they address the fact that a very large majority of blacks voted for 8, that a majority of latinos (and latinas) also voted for 8, they are going to get no where. Most churches were for 8, but they are picking on the LDS only? Makes me want to go out and burn my (non existant) Melissa Etheridge and Indigo Girls CD's. I like their music, but will not support them financially in any way. You are welcome to say what you will (unless you live in Canada or most of the rest of the world), just be willing to pay the piper when the bill comes due.
Or Mormons threatening to ex-communicate members for not working for the Yes On 8 campaign, donating money to it and voting No on 8. Oh wait, that's exactly what they did.
..... or DIDN'T.
IF this did happen, the threateners would be in trouble with the Mormon Church itself. But wait, the Church is the bad guy, right?
I know I'm coming late to the party, but I loved this early comment from Ed:
"Plenty of Muslims hate Teh Gay as much as Mormons do, judging from the public beheadings of people charged with the crime of Homosexuality in Saudi Arabia."
Since Mormons do not actually behead people for homosexuality, doesn't that mean those Muslims hate gays more?
Um, Megan, so you're okay with this guy who helped to force out Scott Eckern the Sacramento theater director who donated $1000 for Proposition 8?
The worst part (if you read the update) is that Eckern was not only bullied into apologizing, he was bullied into making a financial donation to the Human Rights Campaign. That is extortion. Would Miss McArdle be so flippant if it were the other way around?
For all the people saying, "but what if this happened to a gay person? You'd all be screeeeeaming about it."
Get with it. In 30+ states, an employer can fire someone just because they are gay. Not because that person donated $1000 to a "No on 8" campaign, although that would be a pretty good way to identify yourself to your employer if they felt it was really important that you not be gay if you work for them. This state of affairs is considered a principle worthy of fighting for under freedom of association.
I'm gay and guess what, if I worked for Deseret Industries in Cedar City, Utah and they found out I was in a relationship with a man, they'd fire me in a heartbeat. Legally. And with the approbation of the community.
To follow up:
If Eckern were fired for being a Mormon (which is not what happened), he'd be protected by federal employment law in all 50 states.
For a contrast for everyone who is shocked to learn that people can be pushed out of their job, directly or through pressure, for being part of an unpopular minority... Mormons are better protected than gays. And we all don't have the luxury of living in San Francisco, Madison, or Manhattan.
Half-Canadian, I agree, there is a difference between outright bigotry and the more subtle reasons that make many good people uncomfortable with same-sex marriage. For me, I know a lot of people just lack the empathy and imagination to accept a civil definition of marriage that does not exclude me, and it's not because they're bad people.
However, I think we can recognize that there is a difference between Eckern privately holding this view and voting that way, and giving a rather large sum of money to make sure it passes, thereby causing nontrivial pain to his friends and colleagues. He didn't have to do *that.*
Brittain33,
That's exactly my point. There is no allowance for disagreement. Mr. Eckern can be friendly and respectful to gay people, but if he should support something that they disagree with, then everything else about him does not matter. He is now the enemy and must be cast out.
And I see that these same people are targeting a resturaunt where the manager donated $100 to the Prop 8 campaign.
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/gay-rights-vigilantes/
Sure, she's supported the gay community in the past on other issues, but the fact that she disagrees with them on this issue makes that irrelevant. She must be shut down.
Do you support ruining people's lives just because they disagree with you? This is not Jim Crow. Gay people can vote. They can serve on juries. They HAVE access to all of the legal rights that marriage brings. They only lack the legal right to call it a marriage. Is this worth ruining people's lives over?
Half Canadian:
"Do you support ruining people's lives just because they disagree with you?"
A boycott of goods or services is not "ruining people's lives." Both of these boycotts target businesses that serve primarily gay people. The underlying principle is that (to gays) one cannot be both "gay-friendly" and anti-gay marriage. I know many people consider themselves to fall in this camp, maybe even supporting civil unions. But there is a growing feeling amongst gays that they're not going to patronize people who are friendly yet believe gay relationships are inferior.
PS - Gays do not have access to all of the legal rights marriage brings.
Gogg,
According to California law, they do.
(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
Seems pretty clear to me.
And getting blacklisted was supposed to have ruined the blacklisted communist's lives. Blacklisting Eckern could very well ruin his career. But whether it does or not, what this illustrates is no tolerance for people who disagree with you. Eckern doesn't hate gay people, or he wouldn't be working in the theater. He thinks that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman. And for that he must be blacklisted.
The line in the sand is no longer tolerance, its approval.
Brittain33
If Eckern were fired for being a Mormon (which is not what happened), he'd be protected by federal employment law in all 50 states.
Eckern was fired for exercising his First Amendment rights. So long as you're ok with that, don't expect me to shed the slightest tear for you if you're fired, or receive any lesser discrimination, because of being gay.
Those who want tolerance from others damn well ought to be first in line showing it to others.
"The line in the sand is no longer tolerance, its approval." - Nope, it's just equality under the law. Personal approval is irrelevant.
"Eckern was fired for exercising his First Amendment rights."
Wrong. Eckert was not fired. He resigned after offending a huge part of his customers and colleagues. California law protects people from being fired for taking political positions. It doesn't protect people from the negative consequences of being tone-deaf to the particular community they work in.
Gogg,
So, do you really think that merely repeating a lie over and over again makes it true?
Requiring society to rewrite it's definition of marriage in order to make you feel better isn't equality under the law, it's special treatment under the law. "Equality under the law" merely requires that gay males be legally allowed to marry women, just like straight males are. They are. Therefore they have received equal treatment.
The boycotts were threatened with the goal of getting Eckert fired. "tone deaf" may be a really pretty to say "he pissed off a bunch of intolerant bigots, so he lost his job", but the stink remains the same.
You're ok with what was done to him and his employer? Fine. I'm ok with people boycotting companies with employees who opposed Prop 8, or support gay rights, or are gay, with the intention of getting those people fired. Especially you.
So long as you favor attacking people for having a different point of view than you, I support people attacking you for the same reason.