Nearly seven years after those over-the-top, melodramatic words at the National Press Club, many of us are still waiting to see the “ramifications” for opposing the Bush Administration.  If you want to call winning Oscars, signing huge TV contracts (despite awful ratings), and selling millions of recordings “ramifications” then, baby, sign me up!

Mayor Ron Dellums

But, anyone with a semi-balanced view of the industry we work in will see that the vast, vast majority of repercussions for being on the “wrong side” of a political issue are reserved for those of us on the political right.  And, unfortunately, it is not the rich and famous conservatives in the entertainment world who bear the brunt of it.  It is the regular, everyday workers in the industry who are intimidated into keeping their political leanings a secret.

Stories like the downfall of Scott Eckern serve as a clear warning shot that if you speak out about an issue like keeping the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, you must fear for your job.  That is the climate that we all know we work in and we reluctantly accept.  Private companies and organizations have the right to pick and choose who they have working for them, we understand that.  We don’t like it, but we ultimately understand it because … we are conservatives.  We embrace liberty and freedom, for everyone.

But, when the government starts hiring and firing based on political position, it is our duty to demand justice.  And that is the case now in Oakland, California.

As the San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday:

A $26,000 contribution to the initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California appears to have cost a 96-year-old former Mormon temple president his seat on the board that oversees Oakland’s historic Paramount Theatre.

Amid rising criticism from the gay community, Mayor Ron Dellums said Tuesday that he was putting on hold the reappointment of Lorenzo Hoopes, most likely signaling an end to Hoopes’ 30-plus years on the Paramount board.

“The community is asking us to reconsider, and that is what we are going to do,” mayoral spokesman Paul Rose said.

I spoke earlier today with mayoral spokesman Rose and he maintained the same official statement from the Mayor.  This re-assessment of Mr. Hoopes’ fitness to serve on the Paramount board is entirely a reaction to the objections expressed by “the community” and the Mayor has not made any decision yet.

Mr. Rose also said that many aspects of Mr. Hoopes past involvement on the board are being assessed, not just his support of traditional marriage, (although he was not forthcoming with any specifics).  Mr. Rose acknowledged that the only objection from “the community” had to do with Mr. Hoopes’ support of traditional marriage, but he said it was “premature” to state whether this was a new litmus test for participation on the board of the Paramount, or if the mayor would be asking all of the other board members about their position on this issue.

The Mayor has said that he will make his final decision next week, and at that time Big Hollywood will have a follow-up interview, hopefully with the Mayor himself.

Mr. Rose did acknowledge that he was not aware if this sort of process has ever taken place for a nominee to the Board at the Paramount, and considering Mr. Hoopes has served on the board since the 1970s with no question of his effectiveness or passion for the theatre and the people who work at the theatre, the fact that the Mayor has taken this unprecedented step suggests that Mr. Hoopes will not be re-appointed.

Given that the President of the City Council of Oakland, Jane Brunner, was quoted in the Chronicle’s article saying:  “A lot of us don’t think that he represents our thinking in Oakland…”

It begs some questions:

1:  Does Ms. Brunner believe it is important that the Board Members of the Paramount represent the thinking of Oakland with regard to all political issues, most political issues, or just this one political issue?

2:  Does she believe all current and future Board Members of the Paramount should be asked about their support of same-sex marriage as a litmus test for continued or future service to the theatre?

3:  And, to the specific point of her quote above, considering 38% of Alameda County voters were in favor of Prop 8, is it Ms. Brunner’s position that 100% of the Board at the Paramount must be supporters of Prop. 8, or is there room on the board for representation of the 38% of voters who agree with the majority of Californians?

Those are exactly the questions I have sent to Ms. Brunner and I am eagerly awaiting her response.

Big Hollywood is watching this process unfold, and we will keep you informed as events transpire.

Since then, I have been fortunate enough to have free-reign on all things theatre at Big Hollywood (gently guided by the collective wisdom of Andrew Breitbart and John Nolte) and I’ve had a fantastic time writing about the industry, about the non-profit world… even about my favorite shows.  But now, things have changed just a bit.

It started with Patrick Courrielche’s now famous expose’ on the NEA Conference Call.  Just like the Scott Eckern story, what bothered me most at the time was the media and especially the left-leaning theatre writers’ attack on Patrick.   Instead of showing any level of skepticism over the appropriateness of staff members of the NEA and the White House coordinating discussions with artists about how they can help move the President’s agenda by creating works of art in favor of specific issues, Patrick was attacked and libeled for the sin of telling the truth and bringing the subject to light.

Next came the media’s reaction to James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles’ blockbuster series of videos exposing the corruption at ACORN offices from sea to shining sea.  Again, the venom and outrage is directed at the messenger while the message gets rationalized and obfuscated.  This story raised my ire to such a degree that I began posting at Big Government.

Next, I started digging deep into the story of how Kenneth Gladney was beaten by SEIU union reps in St. Louis.  I saw that not only did the mass media ignore the story, but the left-wing blog world actually tried to make Gladney the instigator.  After discovering that an SEIU front group (working with the White House and House Democratic Leadership) had provided written instructions for their union membership on how to disrupt protestors and create conditions that led to the violence, I began to realize that I was in the thick of some very big issues…  a lot bigger than whether I get to work in a theatre.

These three stories that have been highlights of the year at Big Government and Big Hollywood have a common thread:  Courageous citizens willing to tell the truth no matter what the consequences.  Kenneth Gladney is the quintessential “Little Guy”, the “Everyman”, the guy the Democratic Party always says they are looking out for.  Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe are fearless mavericks with a pet peeve for hypocrisy. They are putting into practice exactly what “Real” journalists claim they are doing:  Speaking Truth to Power.   I’ve had the pleasure of getting to know Patrick Courrielche and have collaborated with him on a number of stories.  He is sincere, he is compassionate and he is ridiculously intelligent.

I have reached the point where I can no longer hide behind the warm embrace of anonymity while I stand shoulder to shoulder with such brave and noble colleagues.  I no longer fear professional retribution nearly as much I fear the direction of my government and the lack of candid analysis from the professional journalists charged with the responsibility of critically analyzing that government.

So, to that end:  My name is Larry O’Connor.

I worked for five years on Broadway for The Shubert Organization and briefly for Lincoln Center Theatre.  In Los Angeles, I continued my relationship with the Shubert Organization as the General Manager for their Los Angeles theatre.  I oversaw the operations and management of the Shubert Theatre, Los Angeles during the runs of the American Premiere of Andrew Lloyd Weber’s Sunset Blvd., Ragtime, Disney’s Beauty and the Beast as well as multiple touring productions.

While serving as the General Manager of the Shubert Theatre, I was also the President of a non-profit theatre’s Board of Directors as well as President of the Los Angeles League of Theatres known at the time as Theatre LA.  I also served on the boards of four union benefit plans and I served as a co-creator and producer of Los Angeles’ premiere theatre awards program, The Ovation Awards.

After nearly fifteen years with Shubert, I took the occasion of the birth of my first child to start my own production and management company.  I managed productions in theatres from 99-seats up to 3,000 seats with stars like Sir Ian McKellen, Kelsey Grammar, Ruby Dee, Neil Patrick Harris, Val Kilmer and Adam Lambert, and with creative staff the likes of Charles Nelson Reilly, Stephen Schwartz, Sidney Poitier, Harry Belafonte, Max Azria and Ossie Davis.  Not once in all of those productions or with all of those people (some of them well known for their extreme political views) did the subject of my politics ever come up, (as far as I know!).

I sat through many one-sided conversations about politics, the economy, America and the war.  It was never necessary for my politics to come out for me to effectively do my job.  It still is not necessary, but, we’ll see if I get the chance to find out.

I am married and I have four children.  I want my wife and children to know that I am not afraid.  That it is not only allowed in our country to raise your voice, it is expected.  It’s part of the deal here.  And when something is wrong, when a friend is being bullied and intimidated, when people in power are corrupt, we have a duty to exercise our God given right of free speech.

I would like to express my extreme and humble gratitude to Andrew Breitbart, John Nolte and Mike Flynn for allowing me to write here under the cloak of anonymity.  I know that when Big Hollywood first launched, Andrew felt a little heat because of it.  But, I think we have all seen over the course of this year that Andrew can handle a little heat, he is the Red Adair of the “Under Media”.  I would also like to thank the small group of friends who have known my secret and remained discreet.  I appreciate your loyalty more than you can know.

This may be the end of my secret, but I see this as the beginning of a new and liberated style of writing.  There are many things in my life and in my past that I kept from these pages for fear that it would expose me.  Look for those stories at Big Hollywood in the coming weeks.  And, at Big Government, look for a continuation of stories like Kenneth Gladney’s assault, and the climate of fear and intimidation created by organizations like HCAN, ACORN, SEIU and the extreme left of the Democratic Party.  Those are the stories that brought me to the realization that there are some bigger things afoot here… bigger things than hiding my face from the world.

I’m Larry O’Connor.  I’m “Stage Right”.  And I’m really happy to be here.

Thank you for your Halloween Daily Dish in response to my Big Hollywood blog about the latest LGBT assault on Mormons.  We actually met once, briefly, at DC Pride, circa 1990.  I had never heard of you or The New Republic.  I do remember liking your accent.

More recently, about five years ago, I shot you an email to say thanks for a column you’d written about the threat of Islam to gays.  You sent a nice thank you back.  I’ve also admired your calling the hate crimes bill “boutique legislation” and urging your readers to stop sending checks to the Human Rights Campaign.

I appreciate the restraint of your posting, “A Gay Voice Against Marriage Equality,” though the title concerns me a little, as the last thing I want is for LGBTers to assume I am some kind of Anita Bryant (she was very active when I was coming out, and we don’t need a repeat of that).  Few things are as terrifying as the thought of becoming the object of gay fury (which I understand you’ve had some experience with).  It’s a sorry state of affairs when people within the gay community no longer feel they can speak freely without risking ostracism or threats.  I sometimes wonder if there should be a hate crimes bill to protect gay people from other gay people.

That said, there are a couple of points in your piece I’d like to address.

First, one does not have to ”search high and low” to find lesbians and gays who are suspicious of the cause formerly known as same-sex marriage.  Contrary to popular mythology, not all of us feel a pressing need for “marriage equality,” nor do we derive our self-worth from the state.  I know gay Californians who voted for Prop 8 last year because they sincerely believe it is in the best interest of children (some of whom will grow up to be gay), and of society as a whole (which includes gay people), to uphold the ideal of the man-woman nuclear family.

And by the way, the gestapo tactics used by the gay community against Prop 8 supporters didn’t win any hearts and minds - they simply spread fear.

Second, the current term for gay marriage, “marriage equality,” is deliberately misleading.  On the surface, it sounds harmless, even benign, but its bullet-proof banality is a con to nip dissent in the bud.  After all, who could possibly be against something as fair-sounding as “marriage equality?”

“Marriage equality” is like “social justice” – a catch-all phrase that means everything, and nothing.  But ordinary words are a powerful tool in the ongoing, subliminal campaign to disguise social revolution (the tearing down of mainstream institutions) as reasonable legal reform.  It’s the oldest trick in the book.

Meanwhile, gays often seem to mistake legal rights with moral approval.  Unfortunately, being able to say you are “married” will not buy daddy’s love – or that of anyone else who is already unwilling to give it.  And there are other consequences.  As Roseanne Barr put it: ”I am totally against gay marriage.  Haven’t gay people suffered enough?”  As we’ve seen over the past 40 years, approval and acceptance can be achieved incrementally – with time – not whole hog ASAP.

“But seeking equality surely is a way for the two belief systems to coexist,” you write.  “Not a whit of heterosexuals’ rights and privileges and families is affected, after all, and most of us who support marriage equality do so because we admire the stability that marriage gives straights.”  Again, sounds good, but you’ve got the motivation wrong.

Based on a lifetime of experience in the gay world – which has included caring for an ex- as he was slowly wasting away from AIDS - I’m sad to say I don’t believe that most gays “admire the stability that marriage gives straights.”  I wish I did.

On the contrary, many gays seem to resent the promise of stability that marriage gives straights.  Far too often have I heard upstanding lesbian and gay couples mock the alleged sanctity of heterosexual marriage – in their defense of same-sex marriage – with snide remarks about the sky-high divorce rate, Britney Spears, and other mainstream marital failures.  So spite has just as much to do with the grab as admiration.

The gay community is trying to usurp the word “marriage” without considering less antagonistic ways to attain the same goal (full legal rights).  What the advantages might be - for them - in keeping the ideal of traditional marriage intact (most gay people are themselves products of heterosexual nuclear families) never even registers on their gaydar.

As “male” and “female” are increasingly viewed as archaic social constructs – or elective surgical options (thank you, “Chaz” Bono) - marriage is rapidly becoming just another disposable lifestyle choice, with children fashionable accessories (largely to make their parents feel like “good” people).  This, of course, is not the fault of gays and lesbians; the deterioration started with irresponsible, sybaritic straight people.  But to further dilute the original intent of marriage (to raise children and keep us all going) isn’t going to help anyone.

If the LGBT community wants to do something really radical – and be truly honest about it - they should consider Alan Dershowitz’s suggestion to “unlink” the religious institution of marriage from any state control, and make civil unions the secular norm.

That would give religious couples, for whom the “m” word is sacred, the freedom to marry in a church, synagogue, mosque, or whatever – letting religious establishments choose which marriages to honor (including gay marriages, if they wish) – and non-religious couples the autonomy to register for civil union, fully recognized by the state, with the same rights and responsibilities.

This way, gay and straight couples would be equal under the law.  And gay couples would still be free to propose “marriage equality” to individual churches, without it being any concern of the state.  Dershowitz contends that a division of this magnitude would be good for gay people and the religious opponents of gay marriage, and that it would fortify the separation between church and state.

Not only would such a distinction shake things up (to satisfy the gays’ radical itch), it would also clear up a lot of the confusion and baggage that comes with “m” word.  Wouldn’t that be a relief.

Best of all, everybody would be happy!

Yeah, yeah – I know:  “But marriage in the United States is a civil union – while a civil union is not a marriage!”  So change it.  Dershowitz’s plan can’t be any harder than what the gay community’s already trying to do (and failing).  Imagine a marriage reform that gays, Christians, Jews, Muslims – and Mormons – could all agree on.  Kumbaya, baby!

Lastly, you write that my position on “marriage equality” is nothing more than “Breitbartism… not principled conservatism; it is cultural anti-liberalism so deep it forces people to take positions they otherwise wouldn’t.”  I’m touched by the ginger way you avoid placing the blame for what I wrote directly on me.  Seriously, it’s very sweet.  But there’s really no need to sidestep the issue.

If by “not principled conservatism” you mean that my appraisal of the situation isn’t by-the-book, you are right.  Unlike the liberalism I blindly believed in for most of my life – thanks to 24/7 media indoctrination - my conservatism springs from actual life experience and a hard-won trust in my own gut.  It’s organic.  And like being gay (but unlike “marriage equality”), it’s not a choice.

As for ”Breitbartism,” I’ll take that as a compliment, since the right-wing, alleged Svengali happens to be one of the most kind and open-minded straight men I’ve ever had the good fortune to meet.  What I’ve actually been the butt of is ”Sullivanism”: the subtle diminishment of an apostate who follows his or her conscience off the gay plantation.

You write, “No one should take a position on civil rights because a movie trailer made them retch.”  I couldn’t agree with you more.  But do you really think the full-length 8: The Mormon Proposition will be less overwrought than its teaser?

My one regret is that the preview didn’t come out sooner.  They could have put it to good use down in Guantanamo Bay.

The unfairly attractive “Sarah Palin” is covered.  I also touch upon what are commonly referred to as “liberal elitists” and their gay marriage antics.  Oh leftists… What will they do next?

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

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

I was fortunate enough to witness this witch-hunt from inside the Facebook bubble that helped create it.  You see, one of my friends, actress Susan Egan, circulated an open letter to all of her friends.  And then her friends circulated it to their friends and well, by now you know what happened.  Her letter has been reported many times and she seems proud of her involvement in this episode.  She actually wrote her initial letter and then, within 24 hours wrote a follow-up.  The full text of Susan Egan’s original letter can be found here.   Her follow-up letter is harder to come by, but it contains much more revealing information.  In the spirit of “full context” I include the entire second letter here:  (my comments follow below)

Dear Friends –

Just wanted to follow up. It’s less than 24 hours since the email/post
I sent, and I am overwhelmed by the number of responses, which are
still pouring in. Thank you! I was very nervous about sending my
letter out there, signing my name and holding my breath to see what
(if anything) would happen. I expect backlash, but I am heartened to
know that my own initial response to the information about Scott
Eckern is echoed throughout our theatrical community. We have always
been a close-knit group, capable of so much, and standing in
solidarity for the civil rights of all our members is a worthy cause.
I am proud to be a part of such a group.

Many messages back to me had questions, and I’d like to address them
here, as I have a nearly-two-year-old (now napping) who limits my
on-line time. It’s long … you guys wrote a lot of messages … get
ready ….

Is it a fact that Scott Eckern donated $1000 to Yes on 8?
Yes, in the state of California, donations of this sort are public
record. You may find the record of his donation at:

www.sfgate.com

Many of you have asked for permission to forward my letter on to
friends, colleagues, press and so on. I’m fine with this. It’s already
“out there” … so you have my blessing. That said, if you feel
compelled to add your name to the letter, please do. Building group
support for civil rights was my impetus for the post.

Many have written demanding Scott’s resignation and have hopes of
building a large enough group of supporters to achieve this. And here
is where I would like to expand both my thinking and what I’ve learned
in the past 18 hours … from many of you:

I understand your position and passion, but I am not ready to sign a
petition asking for his resignation – please read why ….

My philosophy: I have made so many mistakes in my life, done things I
regret and in so doing I’d like to allow for Scott to amend his
actions. I personally do not wish for him to resign, but rather to
write a public apology for offending so many in this theatre world we
all share. I’d also love to see him donate another $1000 towards an
organization of his choosing that would attest to his commitment to
the gay and lesbian communities, which have contributed so much over
the years to CMT and SMC, and to him personally. To me – this is what
we should be asking for first.

A few of you smarties felt like we should take this to the Sacramento
Bee. I’m all for it. Perhaps they are already on it; other news
organizations are. But I’d like the message from us to be one from all
of us. Perhaps a statement, with all our names. As to what that
statement should be. I’d like to be on the side of compassion, not
hate. Vilifying any individual makes us one of them. And the idea of a
Blacklist is a scary one, to me, as it has ensnared innocent people in
the past. I simply choose to spend my money and pursue my career and
live my life in support of those who I feel are fair.
Sam Harris wrote such a thoughtful response and I feel, as he does,
that we should take the high road. He sited an article called Four
Lessons Gay Marriage Actvists Must Learn From Obama. Read the article,
but in a nutshell they are: Anger Loses, Get Organized, Outreach
Works, and Pick Your Battles. These won Obama the presidency. Heck,
these are life lessons.

Read for yourself
A very wise responder to my post asked if perhaps Scott had been
coerced by his church (Latter Day Saints) to make the donation? And if
so, is he really at fault? We know the Mormon Church has been a major
supporter of Yes on 8, and it has “urged” its members to give
financial support. My feelings are: if true, what does it say about a
church that would make such “demands” on its parishioners? But more
important, as a leader in the theatre community I would hope that
Scott would also lead his church to better understand the Gay and
Lesbian community and the need for equal civil rights … something
early Mormons sought as they escaped persecution in the East and
traveled West. LDS has made great movement in its acceptance of
interracial couples and in expunging bigamy from its ranks. Equality
in marriage for all seems a logical next step. In the words of
Hammerstein, “You have to be taught to love and hate … you have to be
carefully taught.” So be a teacher, Scott.

However, I realize it can be hard to be a lone voice – stand up and
make such points, and I do not personally hold it against Scott that
he did not make this courageous choice. I do not agree with his Yes on
8 vote, but his vote is his constitutional right, and I do not even
ask for him to change his mind about that. Rather, it’s the fact that
his income, the direct result of so many brilliant gay and lesbian
talents, was used to support the elimination of their given civil
right. This is a conflict of interest at the very least … and betrayal
at the worst. Prudence in refusing to donate towards the cause and
remaining quiet in his personal beliefs would have served him greatly.

I feel for the position Scott is in now. Do not get me wrong … HE put
himself there and so all is fair. But my question to him is this: what
does your church think about the shows you produce? CABARET, A CHORUS
LINE, BEST LITTLE WHOREHOUSE IN TEXAS, RENT, to name a few. AVENUE Q
is heading to Sacramento – presented by CMT – does it hold the values
of LDS? Perhaps not. So how do you resolve that conflict? Does your
donation in support of Prop 8 (those 30 pieces of silver you gave) …
does it absolve you of your “sinful associations” and livelihood? Here
is where I cannot wrap my mind around the situation. And so it is.

Bottom line. I felt the information was important to disseminate. I
was shocked and betrayed by Scott’s actions. I stand by my letter and
give my blessing if you feel you’d like to pass it along. I preserve
the possibility for a happy ending (the best piece of direction I have
ever been given as an actress) – that Scott will embrace his
theatrical friends, realize the hurt he has caused, and genuinely make
amends. Anything less and I personally do not consider him a member of
this cherished theatrical community. That other composers have written
me in the last 18 hours to say they join Marc Shaiman in his boycott
of granting rights to CMT until the matter is resolved is encouraging!

I wish no one harm, Scott included. My intention is not to cause any
grief to him or his family, just as I’m truly certain (I have known
him for more than a decade) he meant no personal harm to his fellow
artists. But actions and words have consequences, and I’m afraid they
are personal.

But have hope. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been persuaded, so will
others. In news just 15 hours old, and I quote:

“[Schwarzenegger] urged backers of gay marriage to follow the lesson
he learned as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were too heavy
for him at first. ‘I learned that you should never ever give up. . . .
They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they
get it done.’”

Just holding the space; join in!

Susan Egan

I read this letter and I got ONE message: Believe what you want, but if you work here, you better keep your mouth shut and you better not be politically active or be ready for the consequences.

Susan is best known for originating the role of Belle in Disney’s Beauty and the Beast on Broadway and Los Angeles.  That is when I met her and knew her best.  As is the case with most people one meets in the theatre world, you know them intimately during the run of the current show, and once the show closes, despite promises to be BFF, things happen.  New shows are mounted, new BFFs are made.  But we all stay good friends.  Even if you only see each other every year or two in New York or LA at an opening or just passing each other in Shubert Alley.  I consider Susan a friend, and that is why her letter and the language she used in it bothered me so much.

How can the open-minded, free-thinking members of the theatre community not see the insidious nature of this situation?

Mr. Eckern was forced to resign his job and livelihood because, out of his religious convictions, he took a political position. And, in Susan’s words: “I preserve the possibility for a happy ending… that Scott will embrace his theatrical friends, realize the hurt he has caused, and genuinely make amends. Anything less and I personally do not consider him a member of this cherished theatrical community. “ And, how does she suggest “amends” can be made? “to write a public apology for offending so many in this theatre world we all share. I’d also love to see him donate another $1000 towards an organization of his choosing that would attest to his commitment to the gay and lesbian communities…” I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to suggest that this is a tiny step toward Mao’s tactics in the cultural revolution.  This person must be publicly shamed and humiliated and we will extract a fine for his transgressions.

Also, what about this: “Prudence in refusing to donate towards the cause and remaining quiet in his personal beliefs would have served him greatly.” Translation:  If he were smart, he would have just shut his mouth.

And did you catch this line?  “Anything less and I personally do not consider him a member of
this cherished theatrical community” .  Get it?  If you don’t agree with our point of view, you don’t belong in this business.  Go work somewhere else with people who think like you.

This issue revolves around Prop 8, and I will purposely not reveal how I voted on this issue, because my reaction to this particular situation is not related at all to my position on Prop. 8….  my greater concern has to do with the propensity of those in the theatre industry to so easily adopt intolerant and totalitarian positions towards those who may genuinely hold differing viewpoints.

I consider myself a center/right leaning person, and I know, FOR A FACT, that there are many in the theatre industry who hold similar views as I. Do you hear much from them? Honestly, we don’t say much in public, because we are genuinely scared to. And this episode is exactly why.

One other disturbing part of Susan’s posting on Facebook.  It received close to 100 comments from her friends lauding her “courage” for speaking out.  Courage!  Please… In this industry, what Susan did was the opposite of courage… does ANYONE doubt that she would have been applauded for her actions?  Please!  The self-delusion here is almost funny.  Susan herself suggests that Mr. Eckern would have shown courage by standing up and being a lone voice in dissent of his church’s position on same-sex marriage, yet she can only find contempt for his standing up and being a lone voice in the theatre world in support of traditional marriage.

In fact, far from Susan showing courage, a cynic might think that since she was quickly aligning herself with a recent Tony Award winning composer, Marc Shaiman, she might have known that this public stance would put her in very good stead with the powers-that-be in our industry.  It’s not a secret that a huge number of writers, directors and producers (you know, the men doing the hiring) are gay men.  Yes, in theatre, gay men!

After Mr. Eckern resigned, Susan posted on more letter.  Again, for full context, I re-print it here:

Scott Eckern Resigns

While I never wished for Scott’s demise, nor unemployment on anyone in this economy, I understand that his resignation may be the best outcome for all involved and watching.

I don’t want the arts community to be one that cannot accept the diversity of all — including those who may have unpopular political opinions among artists. My beef with Scott was his use of money made from the blood, sweat and tears of the gay community towards the prohibition of the civil rights of that same group.

CMT was in a difficult position. Had they fired Scott, they risked looking intolerant themselves. Had they kept him, they risk financial backlash from artists. Scott’s resignation is the best solution, and offered him an opportunity to something selfless. Let’s give him that.

His statement is fascinating, but I am ill-qualified to analyze it. I do wonder what his lesbian sister thinks of Prop 8. He seems to live in two worlds and that must be exhausting. BUT … changing Scott’s mind about the proposition was never my goal. Informing the theatre community of how he uses his earned income was my goal.

I am overwhelmed still by the tremendous storm of these last three days. I suppose we have all had a button pushed, and now … isn’t it amazing (!) … how lots of individual people … frustrated, angry, disillusioned … are now a unified group … organizing, sharing, loving each other and the message we wish to deliver.

I am so moved by the messages I’ve received from you guys — thank you. The backlash is nothing compared to the new friends I have made. I’m honored to be in line, on the line, picketing the line with all of you.

I also know that some are still angry — even with Scott’s resignation. Perhaps his words frustrated you. I understand your passion, but urge all of us to take the win and move on to the next battle. In no way should CMT be hurt further. This is a great, inclusive arts organization …. beloved by so many of us and the community it serves. Celebrate it. We lose so many theatres across our nation … let’s support this one which has given so much. Scott’s resignation may, in fact, cause backlash from Yes on 8 supporters — so now we MUST stand behind CMT with every fiber of our beautifully diverse selves.

I want to stand strong, make our message clear …. and err on the side of compassion. I know we are right, and with that on our side, we can afford to make considered steps that when scrutinized by reasonable people will be seen as fair, intelligent, and clear. Let’s be bigger than our opponents. Only then can we gain the support of those who are open to hearing — a growing group! So much mis-information was put out in CA and across our nation; we need to re-educate and people will hear. But the moment we sensationalize anything, we lose all integrity, and supporters.

I have learned so much from you in the last few days — thank you. Let me know how I may be of service.

Holding a growing space,
Susan Egan

Let’s take a look at how Susan summed up her biggest objection to Mr. Eckern exercising his rights of free speech and association:  “My beef with Scott was his use of money made from the blood, sweat and tears of the gay community towards the prohibition of the civil rights of that same group.”

The Orwellian use of “civil rights” in the context of a man forced to resign for making a private, political contribution is too easy of a target (isn’t free association and the expression of political ideas the very first of our civil rights?), so I’ll focus on the first part…

I wonder if Ms. Egan (or, the actors, writers and directors applauding this episode) would be pleased with a group of families forcing Disney to no longer hire her because their ticket money is being used to support ideas which, they believe, undermines the basic structure of our society? Of course, it would never happen… but right-wingers are the intolerant and ignorant ones, remember?

And by the way.  Let’s help shed some light on the economic realities of the theatre business for the self-aggrandizing artists involved in a show:  The MONEY was not made by the “blood, sweat and tears of the gay community…” (blood?).  No, the art, or the product may have been made by their efforts, but the MONEY was made by the sale of tickets to the general public (the majority of whom agree with Mr. Eckern’s position), and by the careful and prudent management of the business… the business MANAGED BY MR. ECKERN!!!!

You see, this is the world I work in.  The “Theatrical Community” as it is so often referred to.  A community where a respected executive with decades of exemplary service to his city and to his industry donates money to a proposition that merely maintains the legal definition of marriage as one man and one woman, and he must step down in shame.  Mr. Eckern was great at his job.  He got “butts in the seats”.  He is now unemployed.

If only we had our own Arthur Miller to write a new version of The Crucible.

Stage Right is on Facebook.