November
17
Milk Premieres, Prop 8 Gets Dicey
"What we don't have for Propositon 8 is a leader; there's no Harvey Milk today," said producer Dan Jinks last week at the L.A. premiere of Milk, which played well for the Academy crowd. At the after-party there was much talk about California's surprise passing of Prop 8, the gay marriage ban, as well as the angry reaction from the gay community, which while understandable, is generating some mixed response as well. Here's the Variety story posted Monday night.
That's because some gay activists--and they aren't all the same, they come in many shapes and sizes--are targeting various institutions they blame for passing Prop 8. Most prominent is the Mormon Church, which gave millions to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. The Circuit blog has been tracking the boycott Utah and Sundance Film fest story. So have Movie City News' David Poland and Kim Voynar. And Indiewire's Eugene Hernandez.
One website posted a list of Prop 8 donors, presumably to bring them shame and embarrassment. Film Independent found itself in the middle of a ruckus over the discovery that its LA Film Fest Director Rich Raddon, a Mormon, sent $1500 to support Prop 8, and listed his employer.
"I was furious that he was idiotic enough to give to this in a public way when he works with so many gay people," wrote one board member in an email. FIND eventually released a statement, amid rumors that Raddon had tendered his resignation, saying that the organization does not police its employees' religious beliefs. Raddon's current employment status has not been revealed.
Time.com posted an article entitled "What Happens If You're On the Gay Enemies List."
The LAT reports on how Prop 8 blowback affected Sacramento's non-profit stage company, the California Musical Theatre:
following the revelation via the Web that its artistic director gave $1,000 to back the state constitutional amendment.Among those weighing in with dismay over Scott Eckern's donation are Tony winners Jeff Whitty, who wrote the book for "Avenue Q," and Marc Shaiman, composer and co-lyricist of "Hairspray." 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.
I understand the need to raise awareness, via protest, for the same-sex marriage cause. But I fail to see how protesting outside churches, whose worshipers have the right to hold their beliefs, or conducting witch hunts is the best way for the gay rights movement to raise positive support for the next phase of their battle to legalize gay marriage. More productive is the kind of consciousness-raising PR provided by Oprah Winfrey, who on Friday interviewed via Skype Prop 8 opposers Melissa Etheridge and her partner, at home, holding their two children.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
If a church decides to behave as a political organization, then it can't cry foul when it's treated as one.
Posted by: JD | November 17, 2008 at 08:06 PM
Keep it simple: Any attempt to tell members of any ethnic or religious minority (Black, Gay, Mormon) that they are not entitled to express an opinion or participate in the political process is unacceptable.
Posted by: David C. | November 17, 2008 at 09:11 PM
Rich Raddon is a moron.
Posted by: UGLY PUNK GURL! | November 18, 2008 at 06:49 AM
Okay, so while I find Prop. 8 disgusting and extremely disappointing, I fail to see how these quasi-witch-hunt tactics are winning our side any converts. Would we rather bully and intimidate these people, or try to change their minds?
Rich Raddon may well be a moron, but it's entirely within his rights to support a state ballot proposition, and it's quite scary that he should be forced out of his job for doing so. This is exactly what we criticise those intolerant Republicans for.
Posted by: Andrew | November 18, 2008 at 08:52 AM
Andrew,
As I wrote in the piece Anne linked to above, Rich Raddon's job entails working with a lot of people in the gay community, and his name turning up as making a donation to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, which takes a right away from the very people he has to work and interact with on a daily basis, makes it questionable whether he will be able to do that particular job effectively. If he had to work with a lot of black people, and had been revealed to be a closet KKK member, would the people he has to interact for his job want to continue to work with him? If he'd been outed as being anti-Semitic, working within the film community, which also has a good deal of Jewish folks, would they want to work with him?
There's a disturbing assumption underlying many of these comments that Prop 8 is somehow inherently different than the same constitutional amendment would have been had it attacked Blacks, Latinos, Catholics, Jews or any other minority group. It's not. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice, it is who we are, how we were born, an inherent part of how we were made. I don't know anyone who just "decided" to be gay because the idea of being turned out of your church, shunned by friends and family, facing discrimination in housing and on jobs, and being harassed in public places for being out with a date or your partner sounded like a really swell idea. Prop 8 attacks WHO we are, not what we are; it explicitly labels gay people as less than equal to everyone else, denies us the right to join our partnerships in legal unions like everyone else can. It was never about "protecting marriage and children," it was about attacking an entire segment of the community. And gay people are pissed.
Raddon's name turning up on that list outed him as a bigot, and makes every gay person who's had friendly relationships with him through his job, business or personal, suddenly question the sincerity of his interactions with them. He could have quietly voted for Prop 8, and no one would have been the wiser, but he didn't. He made a $1,500 cause to benefit the passage of a proposition that is stirring activism within the gay community like nothing we've seen in years. Of course there will be repurcussions. That donation, whether he intended it to be made public or not, speaks to where his heart lies, and it may turn out that a lot of the gay community will refuse to have anything to do with FIND or LAFF while he remains there.
No one is saying Rich Raddon shouldn't be able to work, period; we're just questioning whether it's possible for him to continue to be effective in this particular job that requires him to work with a lot of gay people. He might find he can do a more effective job working in some capacity that does not require having good relationships with gays. Maybe the Mormon church has some event coordinator openings or something.
Look, I'm not arguing that FIND should have fired him for his religious beliefs, but I am arguing that they should have accepted his resignation. If Raddon is going to stay on as director of LAFF, he is going to have to speak openly to the gay film community; it is on him to tell US why we should continue to support that fest while he is at its head, to tell US what he is willing to do to heal the rift this has caused. This whole thing is not just going to go away. Raddon has a right to his beliefs, he had the right to donate, but we have the right to not support FIND and LAFF while he remains there.
Posted by: Kim Voynar | November 18, 2008 at 09:38 AM
Anne, you know what? The gay community has been trying to raise "positive support" for years now. We've been nice. And now, the passage of Prop 8 has become the rallying flag the gay community has needed to get us off our collective ass and agitate for change. There comes a point where "being positive" equates to "don't ask, don't tell." I can be gay, so long as I only sneak into East Village bars where no one I might work with knows me. I can be a lesbian, but I have to be careful where my partner and I take our daughter out together publicly and stick to the "gay safe" parks and restaraunts, where no one is going to attack us or say anything nasty in front of our kid. I can be bisexual, so long as no one I work with knows who I really am.
What are you advocating for here, Anne? We should just all be nice, quiet little gays and lesbians, behave ourselves, not cause too much clamor? It's a good thing the Civil Rights movement didn't focus on just having MLK interviewed on television, being oh-so-polite-and-yessir, sitting on a couch with his nice, well-behaved wifey and children. You, as a woman, had the right to vote in this election because women who came before you were brave enough to stand up against all those men who said women should not have the same right they did to vote. Women who marched in the streets, protested, stood up loudly and bravely to husbands and fathers and brothers and neighbors, waved their signs and raised their voices on behalf of their cause.
Thank god decisions about whether black children should be allowed to go to white schools, or blacks could ride at the front of the bus, or use the same water fountains and swimming pools, were not left up to a vote of the majority in every state, or racism in the South would still be affecting the lives of the Blacks who live there in much more overt ways. There's still a racist attitude among a lot of people; you can't change what's in a heart, but you can change, through courts and laws, how people are allowed to act on their bigotry. And it's time for the gay community to join together, raise our voices, wave our signs, and advocate loudly for that change. We are DONE playing at being Mr. and Ms. Nice Gay. The time to agitate for change is NOW.
Posted by: Kim Voynar | November 18, 2008 at 09:53 AM
i agree with Kim's comments here
Posted by: UGLY PUNK GURL! | November 18, 2008 at 09:56 AM
I fail to see how the ugly displays of intolerance among many in our community will help in any way, shape or form. I am outraged at the response to Mr. Raddon. He has been a friend to many in the gay community, many in the film industry consider him a wonderful friend and dynamic individual, and I can't begin to comprehend what he is going through. You may not be able to choose if you are gay, however, you have the power to choose your response and your actions towards someone who, if you know him, is one of the finest individuals in our community. We have a platform in the indiefilm industry to show America positive films promoting all different kinds of families and relationships. Becoming self-righteous bigots and displaying unbelievable arrogance and intolerance will only serve to fuel the fires in those who disagree. Becoming Mr. or Mrs. Mean Gay will only backfire and serves no purpose.
Posted by: Juno29 | November 18, 2008 at 01:06 PM
Juno29,
How exactly is donating $1,500 to a cause that both takes rights away from your supposed friends, and in essence labels them as not equal to you, being a friend to the gay community? How is that any different than a racist who qualifies his bigotry with "but I have friends who are black people?"
And I'm not advocating being "Mr. or Ms. Mean Gay." I'm advocating that the time for sitting quietly back on our laurels, and justifying and making excuses for bigotry and discrimination, is over. The gay community (and straights who support equal rights for gays) have a right to say, we are not going to put our dollars or our support behind organizations or individuals who don't view us as equals.
This is no different than boycotting a clothing manufacturer that uses child labor, or boycotting goods from a country whose political stance you disagree with. Aligning our personal values with our pocketbooks and the ways in which we choose to support (or not support) organizations with our participation is not being "mean." It's about taking a stand and refusing to sit back and say, "Well, that's okay" anymore.
Posted by: Kim Voynar | November 18, 2008 at 01:42 PM
I appreciate your outrage, Kim. I am not advocating sitting back or being well-behaved in any way. But winning the next phase in the same-sex marriage campaign--all over the country, where it's not getting very far at this stage--is about finding the right strategy, politics and PR. Call it marketing. Express your anger, protest, do what you have to do to make a difference. But be aware of other people's civil rights. Is targeting individuals who might lose their jobs as a result of their religious beliefs or political differences getting the movement where it needs to go? Perhaps a more benign approach to raising consciousness and revealing bigotry might work better. Building consensus about gay marriage seems more positive than alienating and punishing people. Do employees of arts organizations have to pass a politically-correct litmus test in order to keep their jobs? Must they agree politically with everyone on their board in order to do their jobs well? What if their religion opposes gay marriage? Should they go against their religion? We can object, argue, try to change their minds. But don't they have the right to disagree? This is starting to smack of "are you or have you ever been a communist?"
Posted by: Anne Thompson | November 18, 2008 at 02:55 PM
I guess I'm just surprised at the level of hatred being levied at Mr. Raddon and others due to their position. What about those in our midst who attend Catholic mass and contribute financially? Have they been properly vetted in order to be in our arts arena? Has every member of every arts organization in our community been thoroughly researched to make sure that every contribution they have ever given (financial or even the gift of time) passed our litmus test? I've always appreciated the art of civility in disagreeing with others and I absolutely believe that the level of conversation with regards to this issue needs to be raised considerably. I understand the frustration, but it can be expressed without attacking individuals!
Posted by: Juno29 | November 18, 2008 at 03:29 PM
Juno29,
I'm glad you think that Mr. Raddon has been a friend to many in the gay community. Publicly, perhaps. Privately, not so much.
With friends like these....
Posted by: Diuxon Steele | November 20, 2008 at 05:57 AM
You know, when this story first erupted on the internet, I was furious - threatening to cancel my FIND membership, etc.
But I think - and I hope - that FIND and others in the film industry will use this as an opportunity to air differences in an adult fashion.
I've contacted them as asked as much. I believe that instead of cloistering themselves off from everyone and fretting over the response, they should begin hosting dialogues and discussions about identity, sexuality, religion, and the film industry.
They are in a position to take this negative and create a positive. To allow different sides to air their opinions in a forum that requires the dignity and respect adults should give one another is the best way toward building understanding.
It may not be reached. Protest is appropriate. But I've found that respecting those who failed to give you respect is the best way to get them to respect you.
The thing that upset me the most about Yes on 8 (aside from its very existence, that is) was the complete lie that was told regarding education. Without that lie, I don't think Yes on 8 wins. I think these are the points that should be brought up to those who supported it. "Do you realize that you supported a lie? And that lie is tearing families apart?" Ask that question politely of those who were not the hardest of hardline supporters and you might begin to see some minds change.
In the end, it's incredibly frustrating, infuriating, and it makes me feel a little worse about my fellow man. But if dignified forums for dignified people are created as a result and minds can be changed, then this setback is merely a bump on the road toward equality.
Posted by: Brian Owens | November 20, 2008 at 12:24 PM