Last night I went and saw a live stage
production of 8 by Dustin Lance Black
(whose screenwriting credits include Milk
and J. Edgar), a one-off
production at Her Majesty’s Theatre in Melbourne. It was a fund-raiser for the
lobby group, Australian Marriage Equality, so tickets were not cheap yet the
theatre was packed.
The play is based on a real-life trial held
in California in 2010, when 2 same-sex couples (Kristin Perry and Sandy Stier,
and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarillo) challenged the passing of Proposition 8 as
unconstitutional. Effectively, Proposition 8, under Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger, prevented gays and lesbians from getting married. There was a strong TV campaign supporting
Proposition 8, which I’ll address later, and some of these were shown to the
theatre audience as background.
It was also relayed to the audience, right
at the beginning, how the play came about. Requests by the plaintiff’s team to
have the trial broadcast were overturned by their opponents, but transcripts
can’t be denied forever and most of the play is taken directly from the
transcript. The play is actually read, with almost no props, yet real actors
were used to give it authenticity.
There is an on-line version on YouTube
including George Clooney, Martin Sheen and Brad Pitt as part of the cast. The
Australian production I saw included its own well-known actors like Rachel
Griffiths, Lisa McLune, Shane Jacobson and Magda Szubanski (from Babe for international readers). It also
included Kate Whitbread as one of the plaintiffs and she was instrumental in
getting the production performed. Incidentally, Kate has been producer to
Aussie film-maker, Sandra Sciberras (Max’s
Dreaming, Caterpillar Wish and Surviving Georgia).
This is not a play that will attract
opponents of gay marriage – it was clear from the audience’s reaction that most,
if not all, members were advocates. Being a fund-raiser you wouldn’t expect
anything else. Opponents, no doubt would call it propaganda and biased, but the
‘opponents’ in the trial come off very badly indeed. In fact, this is the
salient point because it demonstrated how weak their arguments were when
subjected to the rigours of courtroom dissection and cross-examination. It’s no
wonder they opposed it being broadcast.
And that’s why I call it ‘philosophy in
action’ because it demonstrated the difference between a glib, emotive,
made-for-TV advertising programme and critical, evidence-based argument. It was
obvious from the pro-proposition 8 campaign and other rhetoric we hear in the
production, that it was based on fear. Fear that same-sex marriage will infect
children (yes, I mean infect not affect). Their whole campaign was based around
the need to protect children from the ‘evils’ of gay parents and gays generally.
It was obvious that many conservatives
actually believe that lesbianism and homosexuality are contagious – not
biologically contagious, but socially contagious like cigarette smoking or
alcohol consumption or drug-taking. They have a genuine fear, despite all the
evidence to the contrary, that more children will become gay if gay marriage is
legalized because it’s a choice that they didn’t have before. In other words,
gay marriage is a lifestyle choice and has nothing to do with biology. Allowing
gays and lesbians to be perceived as ‘normal’ is dangerous because kids will
become ‘infected’, whereas at present they are still ‘protected’. That’s their
argument in a nutshell.
In a promotional review of the play in last
weekend’s Age, both Kate Whitbread
and Bruce Myles (director of the Aussie version) give their more parochial
reasons for putting it on. Bruce said he was ‘disgusted’ by Bob Katter’s
political advertisement in the recent Queensland state election, whereby Katter
used lewd images of homosexual couples juxtaposed with Campbell Newman’s (Queensland’s
Liberal party contender and shoe-in to win) statement that he supported gay
marriage. It was an obvious ploy on Katter’s part to exploit homophobia to
undermine Newman’s commanding lead in the polls.
Both Bruce and Kate expressed outrage at
six Catholic bishops in Victoria sending out 80,000 letters exhorting
parishioners to lobby against gay marriage. Apparently, few parishioners were
as alarmed as the bishops, going by the response. In fact, both in Australia
and the US, it’s conservative religious groups who are the most vocal opponents
to gay marriage. Arguments based on arcane religious texts are arguably the
least relevant to the debate. It’s effectively an argument to maintain a
longstanding prejudice because the Bible tells us so.
Spencer McLaren, who plays the courtroom
advocate defending proposition 8, said: “What it is really about is putting
prejudice and fear on trial and showing the inhumanity of the discrimination
that is occurring.”
For those interested, here is the online
version (90 mins).
1 comment:
I think your title/theme is very important. Philosophy in action is pretty rare in real life, and the gay marriage debate is an excellent vehicle for defining it through the medium of a live stage production. The early Greeks placed a high priority on public theatre as a way of examining issues, core values and consequences.
Your point about the cost and how that was a major factor in attracting the kind of audience it did is important.
However, for me the most important message is for citizens to become proficient in philosophy in action debates. It is light years away from most of the debates/analysis of major issues in our 21st century world where it is more about slogans, abuse of any opposition, and taking over as much of the talking space as possible. As such it is about power and shutting down any evidence-based presentation and conclusions. This contributes to poor policy planning and analysis, and discourages genuine participation by responsible citizens.
Paul C.
Post a Comment