Unfortunate Proposition 8 Fallout
I have really tried hard to bite my tongue and refrain from posting anything political. I wanted to take a respite from the political blogging. Unfortunately, something came up that I just can't ignore.
Scott Eckern, Artistic Director for the California Musical Theatre, and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints apparently made a career ending mistake. He donated $1,000 to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. According to the Sacramento Bee:
The idea of a blacklist and boycott have grown from Shaiman's postings and e-mails. The composer, who is openly gay, said he read about Eckern's contribution to the campaign on the Web site [web site name removed], and he felt he had to do something.
"I was so shocked. I'm dealing myself with being legally discriminated against, and then come to find out, I helped put money in his pocket that helped get this proposition passed," Shaiman said in a telephone interview.
Shaiman sent an e-mail which has reverberated through the national theater community and backed the CMT's leaders into the unusual position of doing damage control. He wrote he wouldn't allow his work to be done at California Musical Theatre, and theater workers around the country have followed his lead.
"No one should be surprised in 2008 at how fast information can be spread, and that's of course a doubled-edged sword," Shaiman said.
Susan Egan, star of "Thoroughly Modern Millie" and "Cabaret," followed with a similar e-mail.
Theater professionals flooded CMT's offices over the weekend with phone calls and e-mails decrying Eckern's actions.
In a statement released Monday, CMT executive producer Richard Lewis said: "Any political action or the 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 longstanding support."
I just received notification that Scott Eckern has resigned after 25 years with the California Musical Theatre to protect the organization that he cares so much about. His own statement regarding his resignation is here. From that document:
"I understand that my choice of supporting Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings, maybe even betrayal. It was not my intent. I honestly had no idea that this would be the reaction. I chose to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved. I support each individual to have rights and access and I understood that in California domestic partnerships come with the same rights that come with marriage. My sister is a lesbian and in a committed domestic partnership relationship. I am loving and supportive of her and her family, and she is loving and supportive of me and my family. I definitely do not support any message or treatment of others that is hateful or instills fear. This is a highly emotional issue and the accusations that have been made against me are simply not true. I have now had many conversations with friends and colleagues,and I am deeply saddened thatmy personal beliefs and convictions have offended others. My choice to support the Proposition was personal, and does not represent the views and opinions of California Musical Theatre or the many people associated with the organization. I was required by law to identify my employer and occupation at the time of my donation.
I have enjoyed my association with all the many fine staff members, artists and audiences over the years. I have strived to stay true to our mission of producing quality live theatre to enrich the cultural live of the community. In the course of my work, I have encouraged a work environment that is safe and creative, working together in an atmosphere of mutual respect. I have focused on producing shows with fresh eyes to allow the intent of the original creators to come through. I have not imposed my beliefs onto any of the works, but have sought to explore the truths found in the storytelling to speak for themselves if they are told well. I have enjoyed the opportunity to be alongside wonderful artists as we have collaborated on sharing productions that will both enlighten and entertain.
[...]
I am leaving California Musical Theatre after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatre-going and creative community. California Musical Theatre will continue to welcome with open arms all staff, artists and audiences who collaborate in the experience that live theatre does best -- to lift the human spirit. I will continue to be in the audience to cheer on all the good work. It has been an honor to serve alongside those I love and respect in this noble profession. I am disappointed that my personal convictions have cost me the opportunity to do what I love the most which is to continue enriching the Sacramento arts and theatre community."
I too am very disappointed that Scott's "personal convictions have cost [him] the opportunity to do what [he loves] the most." I can't help but reflect upon the hypocrisy of those whose efforts led to Scott's resignation. While calling upon religious individuals to accept and condone their same-sex marriages regardless of religious conviction, they seek to blacklist Scott Eckern and his employer because he made a personal donation to a cause based on religious conviction. Perhaps it is just me, but this reflects poorly on the proponents of same-sex marriage insistence that they have no desire to adversely impact anyone's free speech or ability to practice their religion.
McDonalds, Apple, Google, P.G.&.E., Brad Pitt and others used the funds that I spent on their products, services or movies to fight a measure that I personally supported. While I didn't like it that they used my hard-earned money for this purpose, I didn't call for blacklists, protests or resignations.
In this case, apparently Scott was supposed to know that his personal donation would be unacceptable to many of the same people with which he had worked for 25 years at CMT. Apparently, it is a requirement to support same-sex marriage in order to work at CMT or in musical theatre at all. I find this an appalling double-standard.
Comments
Prop 8
WRONG! This is not about people exercising their religious convictions.
This is about forcing those convictions on others!
There can be no second-class Americans.
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
–Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
-http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm
You missed the point
Hey Anonymous, thanks for the comment. I think you missed the point of the post however. Shouldn't what you quoted from the Declaration of Independence also protect Scott from losing his job based on his personal donation to a political cause.
As to your point about Proposition 8, I would just point out that I believe that when the four judges of the State Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, they by judicial fiat had overturned a definition of marriage which has existed for thousands of years. The three judges who voted against the majority made it clear that they believed the majority was overstepping their authority. One of the opinions read:
“.....a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.”
There are clearly at least two positions on this issue. No one should lose their job because of their position on the issue.
Deal with it.
If you're willing to support discrimination, you must be ready to deal with the consequences.
You're just proving their point
Thanks Anonymous for your comment.
What I don't understand is how you don't see that this case simply proves the point made by the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. You're trying to raise same-sex marriage to a level where anyone who opposes it is unworthy of any rights. This is the very heart of the claims by the Yes campaign in that if same-sex marriage is raised to this level, then it will become a hate crime to preach against it from the pulpit. How is Scott Eckern's case different? His only crime was to donate to the Yes campaign and now as a result he lost his job.
I can't help but believe if someone lost their job for contributing to the No campaign, you and others like you would be standing out in front of the employer's office discussing a lawsuit. You'd never stand for this treatment, nor should you.
Yet, your comment was of the vain, "Oh well. That's what you get for being a bigot."
You're certainly not going to convince people that nothing bad will happen is same-sex marriage is legal with your argument.
Dave
Prop 8
"Shouldn't what you quoted from the Declaration of Independence also protect Scott from losing his job based on his personal donation to a political cause."
No. It shouldn't. Scott chose to resign and I feel very sad about that. I would have wished he realized what he supported was an unconstitutional proposition aimed at taking civil rights away from a particular group. It should never have been on an American ballot to begin with.
Those four judges upheld the Constitution of the United States - that's their job.
Up until a couple hundred years ago, marriage was a property issue. (Sorry ladies. It's true. But you've come a long way!) The Church has a long history of not wanting anything to do with marriage. It is now considered a religious sacrament by some churches, a bond sanctioned by God. Wonderful ... for those church members. But it is still a civil union for citizens not of those churches. This is discrimination. It is unAmerican, unConstitutional.
And NO ONE can yet explain how it is a threat to ANYONE's marriage. How in the world does it have anything to do with someone else's religion?
Everyone should hold to their beliefs and religious convictions, but you cannot force those beliefs on others - not in America.
You're forcing your beliefs on Scott Eckern
Anonymous, thanks for the comment.
The only reason Scott "chose" to resign was because of the extreme reaction to his political donation and in order to protect the organization that he loved, the California Musical Theatre. If there hadn't been repeated phone calls, emails and letters demanding that the CMT fire him, his resignation would not have been necessary.
You're absolutely correct, same-sex marriage isn't a threat to anyone's heterosexual marriage. The problem is your side is trying to raise same-sex marriage to such a high level of right that it will result in other consequences which are a threat. This case is a prime example. Scott didn't refuse to recognize anybody's same-sex marriage. He didn't threaten a same-sex couple. He didn't physically attack anyone because they were part of a same-sex couple.
Scott's only "crime" was to donate to a political campaign. As one arguing for equal rights for same-sex couples, how can you ignore the fact that Scott has lost his? You and others seem to be of the opinion that "he got what he deserved." This is one of the concerns that led people to pass Proposition 22 and Proposition 8 in the first place. The concern that simply speaking out against same-sex marriage on religious grounds would become a hate crime. Well, apparently it already has. Good job.
Dave
What is the threat?
"You're absolutely correct, same-sex marriage isn't a threat to anyone's heterosexual marriage. The problem is your site is trying to raise same-sex marriage to such a high level of right that it will result in other consequences which are a threat."
Lets look at this from your point of view, Dave. Say someone that you'd worked for, for a number of years, who you had given money to for services, who you had helped pay they salary of, contributed to and voted in favor of a theoretical proposition to ban the Mormon religion from being practiced in the state you life in, or that all Mormons should be exterminated because of their beliefs. How would you feel about that person? Wouldn't you feel betrayed that the person used your money to vote against your right of the freedom of religion?
It's the same thing here, with Prop 8 - everyone who voted Yes, personally is responsible to every single gay Californian for taking their rights away. It's as simple as that. You all must now stand and face the music for what you did.
You all took our rights away - we were given the right to Marry in June, by the people of highest trust to maintain and enforce the laws of this state, in a fair manner, and to apply the law equally to all citizens, and you have now forced your religious beliefs down our throats, and taken away our rights.
We never once asked you to believe what we believe. I am a member of the church of Religious Science - I never said that you have to follow the equality belief of that church. You told us with your vote that we cannot marry. I never once told you that you can't marry, or that your marriage would be any less valuable or any different because of my right to marry. We had opportunity that you have - the 50/50 chance that your marriage will work out in the long run - and you all just told us that we are 2nd class citizens by taking that right away.
It's pretty simple - you took a civil right away from a group of people, and now, it's time to stop telling people that they violated your rights. Your rights were never in question.
It isn't the same thing
Thanks for the comment anonymous.
While I respect your position, your examples aren't really analogous. The rights to freedom of religion and freedom from being exterminated by your government are specifically protected by the US Constitution. Same-sex marriage is not. That didn't become a right until the State Supreme Court decided that it was.
Maybe you can clarify for me why it is necessary to redefine the term marriage to meet the needs of a small percentage of the population of the state. Why aren't domestic partnerships sufficient? Don't those domestic partnerships already guarantee the same protections as marriage?
You're really forcing your beliefs on me and my Church in demanding that we accept your definition of marriage rather than the one which has been in place for thousands of years and is accepted by the bulk of world religions.
Dave
Yes, it's exactly the same thing.
"The rights to freedom of religion and freedom from being exterminated by your government are specifically protected by the US Constitution. Same-sex marriage is not. That didn't become a right until the State Supreme Court decided that it was."
No matter when, where, why or how, when the Supreme court made same-sex marriage legal in California, it was a right - just like all the other rights and protections that are part of the CA Constution or the US Constution. It wasn't a lesser right, like you imply. New rights are afforded to people from time to time, like the right for whites to marry blacks, and the right for black slaves to marry other black slaves. Black slaves were considered property, not people, prior to 1967, and therefore couldn't get married. Pretty sad, isn't it? I don't see you or your church contributing $70 million dollars to take those rights away. All those examples are the same - a right is a right is a right.
"Maybe you can clarify for me why it is necessary to redefine the term marriage to meet the needs of a small percentage of the population of the state. Why aren't domestic partnerships sufficient? Don't those domestic partnerships already guarantee the same protections as marriage?"
Why is Seperate, but equal OK with you? So lets say we start calling you a Mormon citizen, rather than an American Citizen - give you all the same rights, but call you by a different title, make you a 2nd class citizen, since you are Mormon? That doesn't feel just, and right, does it? Its exactly the same thing to me. You want to give me all the same rights, but call me something different, just because I was born gay - born destined to love someone that you don't think I should love. Just because I want to feel less alone in this world, and be able to have the civil govenment recognize that love, you feel that you must impose your thoughts on what is right on top of me. What gives you that the right to do that? And why do you even care? You let me live, let me love, and I won't hurt you .. I won't take away your right to love the person you want to love, I won't try to tell you that your way of thinking is wrong.
"You're really forcing your beliefs on me and my Church in demanding that we accept your definition of marriage rather than the one which has been in place for thousands of years and is accepted by the bulk of world religions."
No I am not. I am not forcing anything on you. You feel that I am focing my thoughts on you because I don't agree with you and your religion. So what if "the bulk" of the world's religions accept something? There is something called freedom of religion in the United States. You are allowed to think what you want, and I am allowed to think what I want. I am allowed to believe any religion that I want to believe, or none at all, and I can change my mind at any time, too, just like you can. The US Constution guarantees this. Because of this, I don't understand why you feel the need to change this. The mormon religion is not the supreme race, but you're sure making it seem that way. Heil Mormonism!
I say again, I never tried to take anything away from you, or tell you that you had to believe that same-sex marriage is OK. Same-sex marriage would not do anything to your Different-sex marriage. Same-Sex marriage would not effect you or your marriage in any way .. it would not effect your church in any way. So, really, what is it to you? Why do you care? Why is it worth any of your time, energy and money?
I certainly am too busy in my daily life, and too broke in this economic time to worry about things that don't effect me or my family, friends, chuch, etc, and with that, it comes down to a bare issue of intolerance, hate, and bigotry, and you can have those feelings toward me all you want. that is your right., even if I don't agree with you, but I'll defend your right to think that way.
Hey Anonymous, thanks for the
Hey Anonymous, thanks for the comment.
No matter when, where, why or how, when the Supreme court made same-sex marriage legal in California, it was a right - just like all the other rights and protections that are part of the CA Constution or the US Constution. It wasn't a lesser right, like you imply. New rights are afforded to people from time to time, like the right for whites to marry blacks, and the right for black slaves to marry other black slaves. Black slaves were considered property, not people, prior to 1967, and therefore couldn't get married. Pretty sad, isn't it? I don't see you or your church contributing $70 million dollars to take those rights away. All those examples are the same - a right is a right is a right.
I think you're history is a little confused. Blacks weren't considered property in 1967. :-) Actually, I'm sure that was a typo.
The question isn't over whether everyone has an opportunity to marry, the question is over the definition of what is a marriage. If we make this change to the definition of a marriage, where does it stop? Who gets to decide that there are only two parties to a marriage? Who gets to decide that all parties must be a human being? While you can assume me that this would never happen, your assurances would mean nothing. No one would have predicted that the State Supreme Court would decide that same-sex marriage was legal even a few years ago, yet it happened. If marriage can be redefined at will by a minority of the population, it will continue to be so.
Why is Seperate, but equal OK with you? So lets say we start calling you a Mormon citizen, rather than an American Citizen - give you all the same rights, but call you by a different title, make you a 2nd class citizen, since you are Mormon? That doesn't feel just, and right, does it? Its exactly the same thing to me. You want to give me all the same rights, but call me something different, just because I was born gay - born destined to love someone that you don't think I should love. Just because I want to feel less alone in this world, and be able to have the civil govenment recognize that love, you feel that you must impose your thoughts on what is right on top of me. What gives you that the right to do that? And why do you even care? You let me live, let me love, and I won't hurt you .. I won't take away your right to love the person you want to love, I won't try to tell you that your way of thinking is wrong.
You can call it "separate but equal if you want," but again you're redefining an existing religious joining of a heterosexual couple to something else. You're asking to redefine an institution that has been around for thousands of years and the basis of our society. I don't think your analogy holds since no one is calling same-sex couples "Gay Americans". You still have the right to marry, but marriage is between a man and a woman. A joining of two people of the same gender would need a different name. Why would you care if it were called marriage, joining, or something else? If two people love each other, commit to spend the lives with each other in a public setting and have government recognition of the relationship with shared property rights, health care rights, etc., then why must that joining ceremony be a marriage?
I care because of what will naturally proceed from this redefinition and the further redefinitions that follow. As marriage is redefined in a variety of ways, our society will be fundamentally changed and there will be consequences that will result. I'm concerned that in trying to redefine marriage, we're failing to consider these long term consequences. You're assuming that this will be the last redefinition. I don't believe that's true.
No I am not. I am not forcing anything on you. You feel that I am focing my thoughts on you because I don't agree with you and your religion. So what if "the bulk" of the world's religions accept something? There is something called freedom of religion in the United States. You are allowed to think what you want, and I am allowed to think what I want. I am allowed to believe any religion that I want to believe, or none at all, and I can change my mind at any time, too, just like you can. The US Constution guarantees this. Because of this, I don't understand why you feel the need to change this. The mormon religion is not the supreme race, but you're sure making it seem that way.
I use "you" in the term of everyone supporting same-sex marriage, not you personally. I find it amusing that the group attempting to redefine marriage is the one accusing me of trying to change something. As in the example of Scott Eckern, this redefinition of marriage will end up affecting my freedom of religion. You can insist that it won't. The court can insist that it won't. Unfortunately, the track record on this isn't very good. Tell Catholic Charities in Massachusetts that same-sex marriage won't affect them. Tell Scott Eckern that same-sex marriage isn't affecting his life. Tell Boy Scouts of America that their religious beliefs are safe. Religion isn't politically correct. As society devolves into a secular cesspool of everyone doing whatever they want and insisting that everyone else accept their immoral behavior as moral, religions will lose their fundamental protection as their practitioners are deemed guilty of hate crimes against people with whose behavior they disagree.
Thank you for your respect of my freedom of speech. I similarly respect yours. Unfortunately, you and I aren't the ones who I'm concerned about. There are many on both sides who believe that anyone who disagrees with their position must be evil and doesn't deserve to be heard or respected.
Prop 8
No, Dave. You are absolutely wrong.
No one has forced any beliefs on Scott Eckern. They have rejected his attempt to force his beliefs on them. He has no need to accept anything contrary to his beliefs.
"The problem is your site (huh?) is trying to raise same-sex marriage to such a high level of right that it will result in other consequences which are a threat?"
What "high level?" Equal civil and human rights for all. Other consequences and threats? WHAT?!!
Very few people think Scott "got what he deserved." Most people are upset he resigned. But people will no longer sit back and allow discrimination. People are hurt and angry. For what? You even said there was no threat to "marriage."
If women's rights had been put up for men to vote on they would still be "property."
If equal rights for African-Americans had been put on a ballot they would have advanced nowhere. Civil rights are not to be voted on. Human rights are not an opinion.
By the way, I'm Jim.
There are actually two sides to this issue
Jim, thanks for your comment. By the way, if you register on the site, your posts appear immediately rather than waiting for moderator approval.
Until the State Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, this supposed civil right didn't exist. Same-sex couples already had domestic partnerships which granted them all the same legal protections as marriage. The issue was in the court redefining the specific term "marriage" in direct opposition to the will of the people as evidenced by Proposition 22. By creating a new civil right for same-sex marriage, the threat is in the nature of the subsequent decisions which naturally come from that right. For example, that anyone who speaks out against same-sex marriage is guilty of a hate crime.
Scott's case is a prime example. He participated in a completely legal activity, donating to a political cause in which he believed, yet he was forced to resign from his job. He didn't stand on a street corner shouting hatred to homosexuals. He wasn't treating homosexual co-workers differently. Why then is he the subject of the attacks and forced to resign. Apparently, it is a job requirement to support same-sex marriage in order to work at the California Musical Theatre.
I would also point out that this "civil right" doesn't exist in 48 of the 50 states, nor are same-sex marriages these two states recognized by the other 48 states.
Why, as Elton John suggests, aren't same-sex couples happy with domestic partnerships? Why the necessity to force the majority of the state's population to accept their beliefs that same-sex marriages are the same as heterosexual marriages? Insisting over and over that this is a civil right and a human right doesn't actually make it so.
Dave
It is unconstitutional for
It is unconstitutional for the government to discriminate against homosexuals by depriving them of the right (and yes, marriage has been determined to be a constitutional right) to marry the person of their choosing. Just like it was unconstitutional to ban a black person from marrying a white person. It is not unconstitutional, however, for private citizens to organize a boycott against a person or organization for that person or organization's position on a political issue. Focus on the Family does it all the time.
And are you honestly asking why homosexuals are not satisfied with domestic partnerships? Do you want to ask Rosa Parks why she wasn't satisfied with sitting at the back of the bus? Or why she wasn't satisfied with her "blacks only" water fountain?
Homosexuality isn't a race
Hey Anonymous, thanks for the comment.
I'll agree that marriage is a constitutional right. Where we disagree is our definition of marriage. For me and at least 47 other states, marriage is a religious joining of a man and a woman before God. For you, marriage is a religious, civil or legal joining between any two individuals. That's really the crux of the problem.
I've heard this racism argument before, but it doesn't hold water with me for a simply reason. Same-gender attraction isn't a race. The fact that 70% of African Americans voted for Proposition 8 should give you a clue that they don't see it that way either. A big issue for me is that by making same-gender attraction equal to a race, anyone who opposes it on any grounds is a racist, bigot, homophobic nut.
The further ridiculous extension would be for me and a group of friends to decide that for us that polygamy is the only way to go and to demand that you recognize our polygamous relationships as domestic partnerships. This would be followed by a subsequent demand that the government allow us to marry. Carrying the ridiculous even further, perhaps me and my friends would decide we love our shetland ponies. We were born that way and so we deserve the same rights to marry as everyone else. If you disagree, we'll call upon Rosa Parks' memory and demand our equal rights. You darn polygaphobes! Where does the redefinition of marriage end?
BTW, I've never seen Focus on the Family boycott an organization trying to get a specific person fired, whose only crime was to donate to a cause. Perhaps you've seen cases that I've missed. Be sure to send me an example.
Dave
"Scott's only "crime" was to
"Scott's only "crime" was to donate to a political campaign. As one arguing for equal rights for same-sex couples, how can you ignore the fact that Scott has lost his? You and others seem to be of the opinion that "he got what he deserved." This is one of the concerns that led people to pass Proposition 22 and Proposition 8 in the first place"
Prop 8 caused exactly what you claim it was trying to prevent.. Funny how that worked out that way..
Non of this would have never happened if some religious idiots didn't think it was their right to force their opinions on the rest of the state.. Maybe if they would not have forced their views on the rest of the state, Scott would still have his job that he loved so dearly.
See anytime someone passes a law that takes away a freedom/right it is going to cause people to get upset. How could people not expect this? And now people like you Dave, are using Scott's story to push their agenda.. He's your new martyr..
Hey, maybe this was planned.. You never know.. With the move to get Prop 8 over turned again, the pro 8 people need all the publicity they can get to make sure the no on 8 folks look horrible..
-Steve
Oh please...
Are you really suggesting that Scott fermented the controversy on his own? Somehow he made sure his donation was made public knowledge knowing that the gay playwrights whom he had worked with for 25 years would call for his dismissal just so that he could resign from the job he loved simply to make the No on Prop 8 people look horrible. I think you're watching too much TV. Ummmm... no, I think in this specific case, they took care of that themselves. They didn't need any help.
You're guilty of exactly the same thing you're accusing me of. You've decided that Scott doesn't have a right to be against same-sex marriages and work at the CMT or apparently in musical theatre in general. Apparently that is a gay job or something. Who decided that? It wasn't the voters or even the State Supreme Court.
By the way, I didn't make this man a martyr. The people who loudly called for his dismissal did.
Just Another Religious Idiot
"Are you really suggesting
"Are you really suggesting that Scott fermented the controversy on his own? "
I'm saying anything is possible, do you know this man personally, do you really know he loved his job? Dave, seriously, what do you know about this man, besides what was printed in the article?
"I think you're watching too much TV. "
You would think wrong, I rarely watch TV.. Sorry.. nice try.. But I do think you have to much faith in a man you do not know. So in a way, you are taking his cause to heart to try to prove a point, that is making im a martyr.
"You're guilty of exactly the same thing you're accusing me of. You've decided that Scott doesn't have a right to be against same-sex marriages and work at the CMT or apparently in musical theatre in general."
I am guilty of no such thing, I have never stated he did not have the right to be against same sex marriage, and I have never said he should not work at CMT.. You are putting words in my mouth Dave. You really shouldn't do that, it belittles you, not me.
"Just Another Religious Idiot"
You said it, I didn't my original statement was about the people who wrote prop 8 and think that they know what's best for the rest of the state.. But if you want that title, take it.
-Steve
Wearing it proudly!
Okay Steve. We're wasting each other's time I'm afraid. I know your position clearly on the Proposition. You know mine. I have no idea what you think about Scott Eckern, other than you believe he did all this to support Proposition 8. I don't know whether you support him being forced to resign or not. No, I don't know him personally. I only have what I read in the paper, from his statement and from the web site of his supporters. I can't help but think you wouldn't be very understanding if I suggested someone on the opposite side was making up a situation to promote their agenda. It is also possible that he's an alien from the Planet Zimbra, but it isn't likely.
I had only intended this post to promote a conversation about whether Scott's forced resignation was appropriate and I guess I should have known it was going to turn into another Yes vs. No on Proposition 8 argument.
If wanting to retain the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman means that I'm just another religious idiot, then so be it. I'll wear that designation proudly, right next to my "another bitter American clinging to guns and religion" hat.
Thank God for America.
Dave
I'm done.. No point in
I'm done.. No point in discussing these issues with closed minded people.
I agree entirely.
I couldn't agree more Steve. I feel exactly the same way. I think we just disagree on who the closed-minded people are. :-)
Round two has come to a draw. :-)
Actually, I think neither one of us are the people that either side is trying to convince. We're both already too set in our opinion to switch sides.
Dave