November
25
Prop 8 Debate Continues as Raddon Ankles LAFF
As the Oscar buzz for Milk continues to grow, there is continued fallout over California's passing of the gay marriage ban known as Prop 8.
After a long and fractious debate within the Film Independent board, they finally voted Monday to accept the second resignation of LA Film Fest director Rich Raddon, a Mormon who gave $1500 to support Prop 8. They had initially refused to police his religious beliefs. Here's Michael Jones' story.
Raddon's statement:
"I feel honored to have worked with such a wonderful group of people at the Los Angeles Film Festival over the last nine years. I am proud of our accomplishments. And I am proud to have worked at Film Independent, an organization whose principles and values of diversity and artistic integrity I cherish. I have always held the belief that all people, no matter race, religion, or sexual orientation are entitled to equal rights.""As many know, I consider myself a devout and faithful Mormon. I prefer to keep the details around my contribution through my church a private matter. But I am profoundly sorry for the negative attention that my actions have drawn to Film Independent and for the hurt and pain that is being experienced in the GLBT community."
The Board of Film Independent's statement:
"With great reluctance, Film Independent has accepted Richard Raddon's resignation as Director of the Los Angeles Film Festival. Rich's service to the independent film community and to Film Independent has been nothing less than extraordinary. He has always shown complete commitment to our core principles of equality and diversity during his long tenure. It was through his leadership that the Los Angeles Film Festival has grown into a formidable and exciting showcase for talented artists and diverse voices. We are sorry to see him go."
The Sunday LAT covered this story and other Prop 8 fallout. Milk actor Howard Rosenman expressed his support for Prop 8 boycotts.
Here's my earlier post expressing concern that freedom of speech be protected in this contentious environment, when religion and politics make a volatile mix, indeed.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
If Mr. Raddon was working as the executive director of the Negro College Fund or the Jewish Federation or yes, the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church, and he donated money to support a bill that had the single objective to limit the basic human rights of the very members of that organization he not only worked for but represented, I find it hard to digest the argument that the board of that particular organization would continue to endorse and support him. The fact that actors Don Cheadle, Forrest Whitaker and writer and producer Bill Condon still supported Mr. Raddon after it was made very clear he donated money to support a bill that specifically restricts the basic human rights of the very constituents that make up their and his organization, illustrates that limited and fear based perspectives can even hinder the most artistic liberating minds when it comes to real life drama as they run and hide behind what they refer to as their bible, their God, their way. Mr. Raddon has the right the support what he believes in as do the very members of the organization he is paid and elected to represent have the right to choose who best represents them and their best interests at heart. One day we will look back and tell my Grandchildren, yes, men and women were once restricted from the basic right of unity because of their sexual orientation. We have come along way, we live in a great country in a wonderful world full of more good then bad, and we will as a nation overcome this roadblock and open our hearts and minds to tolerance and good sound common sense. The last time I checked, there have been gay men and gay women since the beginning of our very civilization and their have been groups of religious leaders doing everything in their power to condon and disenfranchise that which they did not bother to understand or comprehend because it was what a book told them that was written by elder white males. Amazing, how we are still trying to get over this hump in the road. We elected a man to be President of the United States based on his credentials, character and innate leadership skills and he happens to be a black man which added a historical significance that could not be not discussed. We certainly can overcome our religious and self-taught fears and ignorance and step out of our protective religious and ideological bubbles and realize we as Americans, as citizens of the world, have a responsibility to lead by example and that calls upon us to be tolerant and simply live with good common sense that paints a large canvas of our democratic principles at large, equal rights for all.
Posted by: Joel Ford | November 25, 2008 at 06:28 PM
This is nothing more than blacklisting, and it is wrong. The idea that support of Prop. 8 automatically means hatred or bigotry is false. The villification of those, like Mr. Raddon, who dared follow personal convictions and support a lawful political measure is reprehensible in the extreme. I would ask Mr. Ford, and those who feel similarly, to step out of their "ideological bubbles" and try to understand how well meaning people could have supported Prop. 8 from a non-hateful or bigoted motivation. Until proponents of same-sex marriage rights can understand that, they will not be successful in changing hearts and minds on this issue. Rank villification of those, like Mr. Raddon, with opposing viewpoints is its own kind of dangerous ideological bubble, and the blacklisting and villication that has been going on since Prop. 8's passage is nothing short of hypocritical and wrong.
Posted by: Blue | November 26, 2008 at 10:49 AM
"... and try to understand how well meaning people could have supported Prop. 8 from a non-hateful or bigoted motivation"
Blue, I'd love to see you outline a rational argument that supports this assessment. Bigotry, by definition, is the act of treating the membes of a group with hatred or intolerance. Prop 8, by definition, denies the right to marriage to a specific group of people, period. Specifically, it denies rights to one group of people based on the religous beliefs of another group.
There are no other groups of people who are prohibited by law (either passed by a legislature or popular vote); Jewish parents may prefer based on their faith that their child marry a fellow Jew, but that child is not prohibited from marrying whomever he or she wants. Mormon parents may prefer their kids marry other Mormons, but no laws prevent their kids from marrying Catholics, or Southern Baptists, or agnostics. Parents of any race may prefer that their child would marry within their race, but there are no longer laws prohibiting interracial marriage. There are no laws preventing disabled people from marrying, or obese people from marrying, or people with brown hair from marrying. The LGBT community is the only minority left in this country that it's still okay to openly express intolerance and even hatred for.
In what possible way can you argue that there is a reason for supporting Prop 8 that does not come from a viewpoint of bigotry? It declares LGBT people as less "equal" than everyone else, it declares that they, and they alone among all people, may not join their union in formal marriage. But if you have a reasoned argument as to how support of Prop 8 could come from some motivation that's not bigoted, I'd really be interested in hearing it, because I don't see that perspective at all.
Posted by: Kim Voynar | November 26, 2008 at 11:25 PM