Zombie has posted an incredible photo essay of the Tuesday protest in San Francisco against the California Supreme Court decision to uphold Prop 8. Some videos are also included. This one shows a Hispanic man on a bicycle who found himself caught in the rally. You can hear the white gay men screaming at him when he revealed that he opposed same-sex marriages, calling him a "f**king a**hole", etc. At the very end of the video, after he rides his bike away, you can hear one of the gay men who had screamed obscenities at him say "That was fun."
Zomboe has a great written analysis as well, including this:
The primary legal and social argument at the rally was to draw a close comparison between the civil rights movement of the '50s and the gay marriage movement of today; or, as this sign (and many similar signs) put it, "Gay is the new Black!"
The goal is to position gay-marriage advocates as the defenders of civil rights, and to drag race into the discussion -- the implication being, the same type of racist bigots who opposed civil rights for Blacks 50 years ago are now opposing marriages for gays. ... But hold on a minute. One of the main points of the civil rights movement was to guarantee that Black people have the right to vote, to get rid of Jim Crow laws which denied Blacks participation in the election process.
So, which side in this argument is trying to deny Black people the right to vote? When you consider that Black Californians overwhelmingly voted in favor of Proposition 8 (70% Yes vs. 30% No), not to mention that Hispanics also voted to ban gay marriage, whereas only white voters (by a narrow margin) voted against Prop. 8, one reaches a devastating conclusion: The white people at this rally are now trying to take away from minorities the power to vote. One could just as validly reverse the protesters' narrative and say that white Californians didn't like how the minorities voted, so the whites are trying to cancel the election and get their way by any means possible -- which entails negating the votes of Blacks and Hispanics. (Notice how 99% of the protest participants depicted in these pictures are white.)
Of course, the gay marriage post-election advocates don't like this narrative. Not one bit. And although I myself voted against Prop. 8, I am not joining in the move to have the election overturned -- which is why I distinguish "gay marriage post-election advocates" and "people at the protest" from gay marriage supporters in general.
I tagged along and eavesdropped on other reporters interviewing passersby; while most of the white interviewees were in favor of gay marriage, whenever a reporter interviewed a Black or Hispanic onlooker, most were unapologetic in their opposition to gay marriage. Which confirms the findings of the opinion polls published after the election.
There are so many great photos. I selected this one because it wasn't obscene. I guess this is a man and transvestite man who want to be married. And they think any objection is bigotry.
Will we see a million gay riot next week? The California Supreme Court has announced that the decision on Proposition 8, upholding marriage as between and man and a woman, will be released Tuesday May 26th at 10 am. Gay activists have plans for "civil disobedience" protests against the ruling if it does not overturn Prop 8. (Overturning Prop 8 but validating the existing same sex marriages would not be enough to avoid the protests.)
In Los Angeles, the local gay press is begging those planning to protest to spare West Hollywood (WeHo). In an op-ed titled "Don’t Trash WeHo When Protesting Prop 8" the author writes:
Unfortunately, there have been rumblings that otherwise responsible, level-headed folk are gearing up to throw bricks.
Equality California (EQCA) sent an E mail yesterday that began, “The decision we have been waiting for is coming any day now. While we hope for the best, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to win marriage back (emphasis added),”
1. Celebrate a positive decision and attempt to spread its impact, or 2. If the court rules against us, make sure that our angry voices are heard around the world. Anger for denying an entire group of people their civil rights is perfectly legitimate and appropriate.(my emphasis added)
The official poster for this coming September's Folsom Street Fair has been released by the 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization Folsom Street Events. The theme seems to be mocking traditional marriage and family life, I suppose in response to the passage of Prop 8.
If you click on the image you get a large version. You can see at the bottom that one of the beneficiaries of the event is Episcopal Community Services. The money will go to the local branch, which does good work. But I am disappointed to think that the Episcopal Church would be in any way affiliated with this event. Clearly by doing so, the Episcopal name goes on the official poster, which is making a mockery of traditional marriage.
(Again, you can click to see a larger version, and the beneficiaries are listed on the bottom. As far as I can tell, Episcopal Community Services was not listed on this 2007 poster.)
So, why would Episcopal Community Services allow their brand to be associated with the Folsom Street Fair? Notice that the beneficiary organizations had to submit grant applications to become beneficiaries, so it took deliberate effort to become a beneficiary.
UPDATE: In response to a comment/question from Andy, I found that the San Francisco Hotel Tax is used to provide a $22,000 grant to support this event. You can see on the list on the link that the tax is also used to fund the San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Parade to the tune of $77,200.
I guess Robin Tyler's plans for a Million Gay March are moving forward. Yesterday SoulForce, the LGBT group that "visits" conservative churches, and Join the Impact, the GLBT group organized in the aftermath of the passage of Prop 8, announced that they have formed a coalition to "take it to the streets" to demand same sex marriage.
In other news, the civil disobedience five day March to Sacramento to demand gay marriage was a bomb. Only 150 people showed up for the rally Monday at the State Capitol according to KCRA. The event was billed as "One Struggle One Fight" and had a civil rights focus to show solidarity with oppressed minority groups, claiming:
"We're not just here for same-sex marriage...we're trying to build a movement and to support others in their fight for social & economic justice!"
But failed to take into account that the legislative offices would be closed Monday for the Cesar Chavez holiday.
I see that the same group who organized two "civil disobedience actions" in San Francisco last November, the blockade of Market Street on November 7, 2008 and the blockade of the freeway off ramp at Market and Octavia on November 15th, is now planning a "March to Sacramento" to begin this coming Wednesday March 25th. The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are funding the action, perhaps from their most recent grant cycle.
No one from the group was arrested for the blockade of Market Street. However, 15 were arrested for the blockade of the freeway off ramp a week later. I think that the local chapter of the Lawyers Guild got them out of any penalties, though.
I am wondering what sort of "civil disobedience actions" are planned for the March to Sacramento. One of my spies has provided me with a more detailed plan than was posted on the website.
They had a "training" this Saturday and have another "training" planned for Monday and a press conference on Tuesday.
The kick-off rally is on Wednesday at Berkeley City Hall. They will be marching to Walnut Creek and staying at the Unitarian Universalist Church for Wednesday night.
Thursday they will march across the Antioch Bridge (civil disobedience action?) and spend the night in Brannon Island State Park.
Well, it goes on and on, arriving at the Sacramento Mall at 2pm Monday March 30th. On the website this is called "Sacramento Day of Action" In the materials provided to me, it says:
Opportunities for civil disobedience and lobby opportunities will be available but have not been organized by the March committee.
Hmmm, I wonder if the local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild had a hand in that language.
I do notice that the San Francisco Bay Area Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild is holding a "Legal Observer Training" at USF on Tuesday. (Although the University of San Francisco is a Catholic institution, it is Jesuit run and permits promotion of gay activities on the campus.) The training is just in time for those who would like to serve as an "observer" for the March:
The primary role of legal observers is to monitor law enforcement and collect evidence during protests, demonstrations, strikes and other public political actions. Trainees will be required to sign a Confidentiality Agreement with the National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter.
I wonder what sort of training would necessitate the signing of a "Confidentiality Agreement"?
Those gays and lesbians who have supported Maureen Mullarkey with positive reviews and/ or purchases of her artwork are taking a second look now that she has been exposed in the New York Daily News for donating $1,000 in support of Proposition 8, the California Marriage Amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Queerty writes that gays and lesbians had thought she was "laughing with" them all these years and now fear she has been "laughing at" them. And they feel betrayed. Mullarkey writes that they have been sending her emails and letters using very ugly language to express their feelings. The comments to the Queerty bog post linked above use similar language.
Photos of Mullarkey's painting series Guise and Dolls is presented on her website. The paintings remind me of German Expressionism and the movie Cabaret that was set in the that time and place.
Her position was always there in her paintings for those with eyes to see it, as the blog Good As You points out. The review of one of her shows in the January 1994 Art in America recognized the subversive nature of her paintings, but did not view this subversion in a positive light:
Mullarkey seems to approach the march and its participants almost as Margaret Mead confronted her aboriginals--as explorer, educator and reporter. The figures are angular, precise, non-naturalistic and presented in what seem to be bright colors toned down. Not to her esthetic credit, however, are her doleful-eyed, elastic-bodied, Tarot-like "Gothic" renderings of, say, a naked, star-titted Button Vendor or an unpleasantly plump drag queen dripping with fake pearls and little else. She tends to enhance the intentionally freakish by making it seem unwittingly freakish... Mullarkey's men and women seem frozen forever in their gay misery. In the grip of the lowest forms of campiness, her long-faced revelers seem mighty dolorous. And who can blame them?
Mullarkey wrote in her piece:
However much sympathy, affection--indeed, love--I have for certain gay persons, "gay marriage" burlesques a primal institution rooted in nature. Marriage, as a unique bond between male and female, predates all politics and religious doctrines. And no one has to believe in God to see social anarchy, with children adrift in the wreckage, at the end of the same-sex marriage road.
My art history teacher told us that this painting was more popular with visitors to the museum than any of the Impressionist paintings. She thought the museum guests had poor taste and that the painting was "sentimental". She also told us that the theme was an allegory for "lost innocence", a euphemism for child sexual abuse.
The California Supreme Court heard arguments today why it should overturn Proposition 8, the amendment to the California State Constitution specifying marriage as as between a man and a woman, and what to do with the 18,000 same sex marriages that occurred in the months before the November election. A lead petitioner in the case, Robin Tyler, is threatening massive street protests if Prop 8 is upheld.
In an op/ed published in the San Francisco Chronicle Monday, she argued for her same-sex marriage and against Prop 8. Robin Tyler ended with this threat if Prop 8 is upheld:
If the court does rule for us, tens of thousands of us will be on the streets that night celebrating a great victory, not just for us but for everyone.
But if we lose and Prop. 8 stands, even if the court rules to uphold existing same-sex marriages, hundreds of thousands of us will be on the streets, angrier than we have ever been.
The time for saying "please" is over.
Now, Reuters is reporting that the tone of the questions of the judges today indicates that they will not overturn prop 8. And Robin Tyler has upped the number she wants to come out into the streets:
Justices, including those who backed same-sex unions last year, asked questions showing they were wary of overstepping the court's role.
Some 18,000 same-sex couples married between June, after the court ruling, and November, when the ban passed. They included Robin Tyler, one of the lead petitioners in the case heard on Thursday. In addition to ruling on the legality of the ban, the court is deciding the fate of the marriages in limbo.
"I think they are going to uphold our marriages and they are going to uphold Proposition 8, and it's a loss," Tyler told Reuters after the arguments ended. "What I care about now is getting a million people in the street."
The Anti-Prop 8 vandals hit Holy Redeemer this weekend. Remember Holy Redeemer San Francisco, the Catholic Church in the Castro District that had some of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence taking Mass when Archbishop George Niederauer was visiting?
A priest walking his dog early Sunday outside the church at 100 Diamond St. found the black swastikas and angry messages about Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that voters approved in November, a church employee said Monday.
(I guess you have to live in San Francisco to realize that "Where is the love?" is an angry message about Prop 8.)
The Trolley of Lights is a Santa Barbara tradition. Tickets for adults are $20 and for children under 12 are $12. The trolleys have a designated route through particular residential streets where people decorate their houses for Christmas.
This year, a gay couple whose house is prominent on the Trolley of Lights route because they go "overboard" (self described) on the decorations also left up their "No on Prop 8" sign to be viewed by all those paying to take their children on the tour. The Trolley of Lights tours started on December 8th and on December 12th, the gay couple awoke to find the word "fag" written on their front window. Outside they discovered that this had also been written on their driveway three times.
The homeowners called the police and want this vandalism investigated as a hate crime. The gay couple have two young children, seven and eight years old. In this photograph from the Santa Barbara Independent by Paul Wellman, you can see the two men with their children positioned to stand on each side of the three driveway tiles where the word "fag" had been written.
They had not removed the graffiti at the time of the photo because they were still waiting for the police to photograph the tiles. As well as getting this publicity in the newspaper, one member of the couple, Andrew Knox, has an idea how to use this for more promotion against Prop 8:
Knox said a new sign would be erected in front of his house — one reading “No H8 Graffiti” — and that he would be seeing if other homes in his neighborhood would consider posting similar ones in their yards.
The Trolley of Lights tour ends on the 26th, so if he can get the new sign up fast, he can get a lot of publicity for this efforts. The article on this is in the Santa Barbara Independent here.
This article was posted today defending the blacklisting of Marjorie Christofferson, the woman who worked at El Coyote restaurant in Los Angeles and made a $100 donation to support the California marriage amendment, Prop 8. The author, Robert Cruickshank teaches political science at a state funded institution, Monterey Peninsula College. Reading through this, I wondered how he could possibly grade students papers fairly. I've added some bolding and interspersed with some links and my comments:
Conservatives Use Proposition 8 To Continue To Foster Cult of Victimhood
By Robert Cruickshank
Conservatives have for decades cultivated a politics of victimhood - presenting themselves as victims of some group, usually liberal and often an oppressed minority, in order to gain sympathy for their insane beliefs and to delegitimize progressive ideas and actions. We're witnessing it on Proposition 8 as well, and now the media is playing along. The result is a massive distortion of the true effects of Prop 8, and the normalization of support for discriminatory policy.
This turns historical reality upside down. According to this worldview, heterosexual marriage is an "insane belief" and something conservatives are seeking to "normalize". I would like to think he is making a little joke, but more likely this is just unacknowledged psychological projection. It is disturbing to think that young college students in California could be graded down if they tried to argue with the ahistorical claims of their instructor.
The specific case is that of Margie Christofferson, who quit her job as a manager at LA's El Coyote Restaurant under pressure from activists and customers angry at her donation of $100 to the Yes on 8 campaign. Her journey from oppressor to victim has been aided by Steve Lopez of the LA Times, who wrote a deeply flawed column on Sunday casting Christofferson as a sympathetic figure:
Margie Christoffersen didn't make it very far into our conversation before she cracked. Chest heaving, tears streaming, she reached for her husband Wayne's hand and then mine, squeezing as if she'd never let go.
"I've almost had a nervous breakdown. It's been the worst thing that's ever happened to me," she sobbed as curious patrons at a Farmers Market coffee shop looked on, wondering what calamity had visited this poor woman who's an honest 6 feet tall, with hair as blond as the sun.
That sets the tone for a column that blames the victims of Prop 8 for making this poor woman cry, and Lopez isn't above repeating disputed claims that riot police showed up at El Coyote during a recent rally.
Robert Cruickshank is quoting from this column in Sunday's Los Angeles Times, one of the very few pieces that have been published that are sympathetic to supporters of prop 8 in any way. The LA Times ran this photo by Lori Shepler titled "Opponents of Proposition 8 yell at drivers entering El Coyote Mexican Cafe last month" with the article.
You can see and hear the protestors in action in this video:
Now that you have seen who Cruikshank considers innocent victims who have done nothing to make someone cry, we will continue with his analysis:
But perhaps the most troubling part of the column was Lopez' normalization of her support for discrimination:
But I didn't like what I was hearing about the vilification of Margie Christoffersen and others in California being targeted for the crime of voting their conscience.
"Voting our conscience" has been one of the key methods by which Prop 8 supporters have escaped responsibility for their actions or even acknowledging what Prop 8 was - an attack on the legal equality of thousands of Californians merely for their sexual orientation. When framed this way the Yes on 8 position becomes almost unassailable, immune to criticism. "They're just voting their conscience," we're supposed to think, and not be allowed to ask them to face the realities of what they have done, not be allowed to criticize them for voting to take away equal rights and destroy existing marriages, and not be allowed to act with our own conscience by denying those who backed Prop 8 our patronage. Each of those acts is cast as an aggressive and hurtful act, where the oppressed are cast as oppressors.
No, Robert Cruickshank, the aggressive bullying and the out of proportion reaction to a small value donation are what is being cast in as oppressor behavior. And the distortions of reality, as exemplified in your article.
Lopez mentions almost in passing that "thousands [of gay people] feel as though their civil rights have been violated" but their concerns and views don't get the sob story treatment Margie Christofferson got - even though she knew full well what she was giving money for, and continues to believe that her vote for Prop 8 was the right move. As Lisa Derrick notes she has never apologized to her once-loyal customers for what she did. Obviously she feels no need to offer any such apology.
Lopez' column writes the real victims of Prop 8 out of the story and replaces them with their victimizers. Once again GLBT Californians and their fundamental rights are treated as either deviant or invisible. The only people whose opinions matter are those who oppose gay rights, and if someone dares call it out then they become the oppressors. Standing up for gay rights, for marriage equality, becomes itself an act of hate.
No, Robert Cruickshank, forming a mob outside the restaurant and yelling hateful things are an act of hate.
Margie Christofferson is not a sympathetic figure.
You wish, Robert Cruickshank, she is sympathetic because we can all imagine the horror of becoming the target of this extreme reaction to a $100 donation.
She is someone in deep denial of reality, who is unwilling to reconcile her relationships with her own intolerance. It's not the rest of Los Angeles's job to play along with it, to enable it, to pretend as if it doesn't exist. Doing so merely continues the decades of injustice that comes when good people do nothing and discrimination is treated as normal.
It would be nice if the traditional media would recognize this. It's not likely that they will. Martin Luther King, Jr. may be venerated today but he was a controversial figure in his day who received FAR more criticism from the media than credit, who was told that the March on Washington was a dangerous provocation that should not be attempted. The Civil Rights Movement rightly refused to let such concern trolling stop them. We who are part of the marriage equality movement would do well to learn that lesson.
Of course, Robert Cruickshank ends by claiming a continuity with the black civil rights movement and Martin Luther King, jr. He doesn't mention that most African-Americans do not agree with the parallel he makes between racial discrimination and maintaining the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman. In the recent election in California, the great majority of black voters, 70%, voted for Prop 8.
You can read the original here. I left a comment but I doubt it will be approved.
The man behind the blacklisting of Scott Eckern gave an interview to the New York Times about his latest exploit, the viral video "Prop 8 - The Musical". (If you haven't seen it, you're lucky. But if you must, go here.) During the interview, Shaiman was asked: "How did you react to the news that Mr. Eckern had resigned from the theater?"
Shaiman replied:
There’s certainly nothing joyous about being partially responsible for a man resigning from his job. I mean, I did not ask for his resignation, nor would it be my place to ask for someone’s resignation. He resigned, though, and I was part of that, and that is a very heavy weight, and I don’t take it lightly. But it has certainly opened up our eyes, and made me get off the couch and out on the street with a picket sign, for the first time in my life. And it felt fantastic.
And the interviewer followed up with: "So this experience has made you more of an activist?" And Shaiman replied:
Yeah, I was marching in New York, and that was just the greatest experience. And of course this video is just a viral picket sign. And hopefully funny. I hope that doesn’t get lost. I hope that’s what most people get out of it.
What I got out of "Prop 8 - The Musical" was that he HATES Christians.
In attempts to create a climate of tolerance at Acalanes, we have promoted certain types of diversity at the expense of others, and in doing so, we have given up an essential component of education.
and that
In our attempts to create a pleasant learning environment, we have veered from our drive for an educational environment in which beliefs are debated, assumptions questioned and original thoughts developed.
I was not surprised to read that although some sort of secret ballot indicates that 20 percent of his school's students and faculty supported Prop 8, very few were willing to express their views publicly. And when the school newspaper wanted to print a pro 8 article, (I presume to balance a No on 8 article), they could find no one to write it unless they could be anonymous, lest they be branded as homophobes.
I decided to look at the comments as I was preparing to post this and the first is from last night, so I guess this article went online last night. Anyway, of the first three comments posted on line at sfgate.com, two were:
vtxbay 11/24/2008 8:57:20 PM
Wah wah wah, those awful people wouldn't let me spread my hateful agenda wah wah wah. Gosh, how does it feel having to hide? LIKE I DID ALL THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL. At least you didn't get the cr6p beaten out of you.
and
whozzat 11/25/2008 6:58:14 AM
So the writers in support of Prop 8 felt the need to remail anonymous, lest they be branded homophobes. Funny, that reminds me of another group who wears white hoods and robes to remain anonymous.
Thank you, Jon Diaz of the San Francisco Chronicle for having the courage to write this:
A supporter of Proposition 8, fed up with what he believed was the gay community's and "liberal media's" refusal to accept the voters' verdict, fired off a letter to the editor.
"Please show respect for democracy," he wrote, in a letter we published.
What he encountered instead was an utter lack of respect for free speech.
Within hours, the intimidation game was on. Because his real name and city were listed - a condition for publication of letters to The Chronicle - opponents of Prop. 8 used Internet search engines to find the letter writer's small business, his Web site (which included the names of his children and dog), his phone number and his clients. And they posted that information in the "Comments" section of SFGate.com - urging, in ugly language, retribution against the author's business and its identified clients.
"They're intimidating people that don't have the same beliefs as they do ... so they'll be silenced," he told me last week. "It doesn't bode well for the free-speech process. People are going to have to be pretty damn courageous to speak up about anything. Why would anyone want to go through this?"
Diaz goes on to give his credentials as a card carrying supporter of gay rights and to reassure gay readers that they will eventually prevail. And he concludes with the "both sides" talking point I have noted before seems to be required of the media by the GLBTQ activists:
Intimidation, through attempts to chill free speech or an independent judiciary, should have no part in this debate. The leaders on both sides should have the honesty to recognize it within their camps - and the courage to condemn it.
But don't blame John Diaz for reciting the required words. The Chronicle would have picketers and his own job would be on the line if he didn't.
In the news section, the Chronicle reported that the anti-Prop 8 rally at the California capital in Sacramento fizzled yesterday, only 5,000 showed up while organizers had intially forecasted 20,000. And their leaders were spouting the ugly rhetoric Diaz cautioned against. One of the speakers was Robin Tyler, one of the plaintiffs in Supreme Court case that resulted in the brief institution of gay marriage.
Tyler, a longtime activist for lesbian rights, argued that same-sex marriage opponents have no right to complain about any physical and verbal attacks they've encountered since election day.
"Get over it," she said. "It's easier to wash a paint stain off a church than to take off the stain they left on the California Constitution."
And comedian Margaret Cho sang a rather ugly song:
Cho, whose comedy routines are anything but G-rated, provided a song she wrote slamming Mormons for their support of the measure, ending with a chorus suggesting that voters not let the Mormons get away with what they did.
Well, the Chronicle published the 5,000 estimate, but the Sacramento Bee is putting it quite a bit lower. In a story published 22 hours ago, one reporter wrote "Thousands of gay rights supporters," but an article by a different reporter published 15 hours ago says:
It drew between 1,500 and 1,800 people to the Capitol's west steps.
The FBI is investigating a list of nine church related crimes in Utah that have occurred over the past two weeks (since the passage of Prop 8) as possible civil rights violations. H/T The Salt Lake Tribune
As well as the KTVU story and raw footage showing the police in riot gear, and the written testimony, there is now posted at Youtube this video that opens with the direct testimony of one of the Christian girls. She says they were repeatedly told "We're going to kill you."
2nd UPDATE: To watch the video of the testimony of one of the Christian girls go here.
UPDATE: Some details from the Daily Kos. (I don't link to this because the post is gloating about it.) "Every available police car in the district and some from outside of it were dispatched to deal with the resulting melee. It took a squad of 15 or 20 police officers with batons at the ready to escort the group of preachers several blocks to their cars, while the crowd dogged their heels every step of the way, chanting "Bigots out of our neighborhood" and "Don't come back".""
KTVU has some amazing raw footage from last night --- a mob of gays chasing Christians out of San Francisco's Castro district, with the police in riot gear trying to keep the gays back. I can't embed the video, so you need to go here to see it. Here's the story, but I hate to post it as it starts with the usual "both sides" falsehood. (I wonder if that is an official gay "talking point"?)
In San Francisco's Castro District, people on both sides of the same-sex marriage controversy confronted each other on Friday night, as police tried to keep the peace. Proposition 8 passed in a close vote and eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Members of the gay community said that almost every Friday night, a Christian group meets at the corner of Castro and 18th Streets. They try to convert gays and lesbians into a straight lifestyle.
This Friday night, the message didn't go over well. Some gays and lesbians reacted by trying to chase the group out of the Castro.
"Their rights were respected," said Joe Schmitz, an opponent of Prop 8. "They got a chance to go ahead and pray on the sidewalk and I had the opportunity to express my freedom of speech which is telling them to get out of my neighborhood."
San Francisco Police officers in riot gear formed a line and escorted the religious group into a van to safely get them out of the area.
Members of the gay community insisted that their reaction to the Christian group was spontaneous. "It was not an organized thing. We're tired of it. It's not religious. It's not a racial thing. It's about hate. We're trying to send a message across the world that we're standing up and we don't want this to go on anymore," said Adam Quintero.
So watch the raw footage of the police in riot gear and the crowd. At the two minute mark, or so, one gay man speaks into the camera:
“It’s our neighborhood! … And we don’t ever want them coming back! Ever! Do you understand that, other Christians? Do you understand that, other Mormons? I’m talking to you people! Yeah, you! Stay out of our neighborhood if you don’t like us! Leave us alone!”
Gays activists have made the following plans for protests this Sunday according to Queers United. Some are clearly churches and some may be gathering first at the locations listed with plans to march to churches nearby. The website also list plans for protests on other days:
Sunday, Nov. 16th
Lake Forest, CA Saddle Back Church 10:00AM 1 Saddleback Pkwy, Lake Forest, CA 92630
Long Beach, CA Jesus Christ Church of Latter-Day Saints [Silent Protest] 10:30 AM, 1140 Ximeno 7148819427, csibri@mac.com
Los Altos, CA 11:00am - 2:00pm 1300 Grant Rd BrandonRN2004@aol.com
Oakland, CA 11:30am - 2:00pm Foothill Missionary Baptist Church 1530 Foothill BLVD
Philadelphia, PA 2:00pm - 3:00pm Independence Hall 143 South 3rd Street
Long Beach, CA 3 p.m. | Intersection of PCH/7th/Bellflower Contact: Brittney at felisperdita@verizon.net
San Clemente, CA 3 p.m. | 242 Avenida Del Mar Contact: Edson McClellan at 949.584.6084 or emcclellan7@gmail.com.
The recent efforts to destroy the career of Scott Eckern were so successful that if is worth considering the tactics:
1) Identify a target. Per the Sac Bee Wednesday story:
The composer, who is openly gay, said he read about Eckern's contribution to the campaign on the Web site www.datalounge.com, and he felt he had to do something.
Per the Sac Bee Tuesday story: Potential targets can be easily found on the websites provided by gay activists.
Links to Eckern's official donation information began appearing Thursday on sites such as the gay political activism site www.goodasyou.org and the more informal conversational forum www.datalounge.
2) Start the blacklist boycott by emailing all your friends and colleagues to let them know you will not longer work with this person: Per the Los Angeles Times:
Shaiman said Tuesday that he phoned Eckern on Friday to protest, then e-mailed more than 1,000 contacts to alert them about the donation.
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.
And from Jeff Whitty, whose "Avenue Q" is scheduled to play the Sacramento theater in March, was among those alerted by Shaiman's e-mail, and wrote on his blog:
I'll work to prevent CMT from producing any of my future shows with Mr. Eckern at the helm. To me, he's one of those hypocrites who profits from the contributions of gays, whose soul is fed by us and pockets lined by us, but thinks of us as ultimately damned. And I support anyone who’s moved to cancel subscriptions and tickets and write letters and express their feelings about Mr. Eckern’s actions.
3) Be careful with your wording. You are not asking that he be fired, merely refusing to work with him. See how cleverly Andrew Sullivan put it in his Atlantic Monthly blog post:
The artistic director of Sacramento's Musical Theatre donated to Yes On 8. He should not be fired, in my view. But I can't see how he can work with any gays any longer. Which might limit his professional options.
4) Know when to let it go. See how gracefully Jeff Whitty backpedaled as the boycott gained momentum and a real career was at stake:
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
My thoughts on the Scott Eckern situation are below. Well, they're yesterday's thoughts, anyway.
Yesterday Scott made an apology that I find convincing and sincere. He backed it up with a donation to HRC. During our phone call, I sensed that there was some real ambivalence, even regret, over this issue, not necessarily related to his future at California Musical Theatre. While my activist side is saying, "Make an example of somebody!", I also would rather hold an unrepentant bigot's feet to the fire. Scott Eckern isn't that.
Scott has been taking calls and exchanging/enduring dialogue at a time when I think most people would have keep their heads firmly planted in the sand. I applaud him for not shutting down, and instead keeping himself open to an overwhelming degree of criticism. He has engaged in dialogue with some of his angriest critics, which speaks volumes.
I look forward to working with the California Musical Theatre in the future. While I think their artistic director made a grave mistake, it was a mistake he then addressed in an honest and human way.
That's all from me.
5) Or you can just be a jerk and babble incoherent spin as your ugly game is exposed to the world. Per the Sac Bee
Shaiman hopes the episode leads to better understanding of gay people.
"I love God. And this is how God made me," he said. "How people can say this is a choice? Unless you are – you don't know."
The Sacramento Bee has posted on line today the latest installment on this story of the Artistic Director who was black listed in an internet swarm. It begins:
The California Musical Theatre found itaself caught in a dramatic conflict between free speech and civil rights, a situation that ultimately led to today's resignation of artistic director Scott Eckern.
Eckern quit this morning. He became the target of strong criticism after it was learned he donated $1,000 to the Proposition 8 campaign to ban gay marriage.
In an industry long considered gay-friendly and tied to causes such as AIDS research, Eckern's donation outraged theater workers across the country.
In Sacramento, a number of the musical theater's supporters contacted The Bee to rally behind the embattled Eckern, stating that he was now a victim of intolerance and persecution himself.
Playbill and other media have said he issued an apology and plans to donate $1,000 to a nonprofit committed to achieving equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
Can you believe the last words of the article were given to the creep who engineered this, Marc Shaiman, the composer of "Hairspray,":
Shaiman hopes the episode leads to better understanding of gay people.
"I love God. And this is how God made me," he said. "How people can say this is a choice? Unless you are – you don't know."
Gay and lesbian artists called Monday for an artistic and audience boycott of California Musical Theatre after learning that its artistic director donated $1,000 to a campaign that backed banning gay marriage in California.
Scott Eckern was not available for comment Monday as the revelation has gained stunning momentum on the blogosphere. The California Musical Theatre produces the Music Circus, presents Broadway Sacramento, and recently opened "Forever Plaid" at the capital's newest performing venue, the Cosmopolitan Cabaret.
Richard Lewis, the organization's executive producer, said the board of directors will conduct an emergency meeting on the matter this afternoon. He said it was too early to tell how this would affect Eckern's 25-year employment with California Musical Theatre.
In a statement released Monday, 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."
Links to Eckern's official donation information began appearing Thursday on sites such as the gay political activism site www.goodasyou.org and the more informal conversational forum www.datalounge. The measure was Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 ballot.
_-_The_Broken_Pitcher_(1891).jpg)
Posts
