As we mentioned in last week’s story on gay Israeli cinema, in the three years since “Brokeback Mountain,” the American film industry has failed to deliver on the promise of delivering mainstream films with gay themes. Instead of, say, the long-awaited film of “The Front Runner” (a project that has lingered for 30 years), we get “I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry,” a comedy whose jokes are at the expense of a gay marriage. And aside from a handful of more thoughtful gay independent films (”Shelter,” “Ciao”), there have been the plethora of harmless, though hardly edifying sex comedies, such as “Another Gay Sequel: Gays Gone Wild!” and “Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds” that qualify as guilty pleasures at best.

It’s as true today as it was last week; and the truth hurts. Is the absence of mainstream LGBT-themed films a matter of economics, lack of quality, or the reluctance of studios to greenlight and market “niche” films? All of the above and more, according to our panel of experts – who weighed in on the current state of American LGBT cinema, recent homo-friendly Sundance films, the curious case of “Milk,” and the thorny question of Sean “Harvey Milk” Penn’s possible homophobia.

Click to read the rest of the article.

My protest cherry has been popped. A friend and I attended the Dallas gathering of the nationwide Join The Impact protest against Proposition 8 and in favor of marriage equality. It was a great turnout of 500 to 700 1200 people on a bright, sunny, windy day.

Some great signs:

• In traditional marriage, women were property
• Let me marry my imaginary girlfriend
• Give my granddaughter a family, let her moms marry
• Married straight against hate
• Holy Matrimony: a religious right. Marriage: a civil right.
• If found, please return: Amendment 14, Section 1, U.S. Constitution
• There was one I could only see part of. What would Joseph Smith do? Fight Poverty? No. Fight Hunger? No. I couldn’t see the rest of the sign, but I assume it said something like, Take away equal rights? Yes!

Some technical glitches left the speakers without a microphone. While some counter-protesters showed up, they were drowned out when the crowd started chanting. We all yelled, “Yes We Can!” until the noise bounced back from the downtown buildings. It was energizing and amazing.

Because yes we can!

Here’s the challenge. We’re all angry and moved by the passage of Proposition 8 and the other marriage acts this past election. We’re all tired of being treated like second-class citizens. We can’t lose momentum now.

What can YOU do?

Here’s an abbreviated list. I’ll do another post that goes into more detail, but here’s a quick list of steps you can take going forward. We can’t afford to lose momentum in the quest for equal treatment under the law.

Without doing anything at all:

• Boycott sponsors of h8. So far the only nationwide sponsors I know for sure are Marriott and Cinemark.

Without leaving your house:

• Write letters to the editors of your local newspaper(s) and magazines you read.
• Read blogs – political, social commentary, gay-interest – and leave comments.
• Write to your federal and state representatives.
• Donate money to organizations that work in favor of equal rights for gay citizens.

In the course of your daily life:

• Talk to straight family, friends, and colleagues. Tell your story. Help them understand when they vote against equal rights for gay people, they are hurting YOU. When they vote against H8 and lend their voice to the cause of equal rights, please tell them thank you. Please let them know that you appreciate it, that their support also affects you personally.

Rise to the occasion:

• Show up. When there are events like this protest in your area, show up. Your presence alone makes a difference. Solidarity and community empower a movement. Together, yes we can!
• Donate time. Volunteer with the same organizations to which you donate money.

————————

Articles about the Proposition 8 protest in Dallas:

Dallas Morning News
Dallas Voice
MSNBC.com
NBCDFW.com
CBS11tv.com

Images of the Dallas rally are posted at:

Over 100 images at Flickr
About a dozen pictures at HintOfMintLive.com
One image from Andrew Sullivan
Towelroad’s Texas album has 7 images from the Dallas rally
Towelroad also has images from rallies across the country

Some coverage of the events nationwide:

DailyKos
MSNBC
CNN
Andrew Sullivan has extensive coverage of different rallies

Marriage equality. Same-sex marriage. Gay marriage. No matter how you name it, it’s not about marriage.

Seriously. It’s really not. Very few people seem to get this. Of those who oppose it, no one gets it. I will state again, this issue is not about marriage.

It’s about equal treatment under the law.

Religious marriage is one thing. It’s the kind of marriage that anti-gay people can rightfully deny, if they so choose. I don’t believe clergy or churches should be required to perform marriages for people of the same gender, if they don’t want to. If they get sued because they refused, that’s not an appropriate lawsuit.

But then we have the civil institution of marriage. It shares the same word, but it’s a completely different creature. It’s a legally binding contract that conveys legal and financial rights and responsibilities onto the two parties entering into the agreement.

Many states (but far from a majority) offer substitutes for marriage: civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. Many gay people (well, Elton John, anyway) seem to think that’s just fine. Even among those who oppose marriage equality, we can find some who support civil institutions as long as they’re not called “marriage.”

The problem? Separate but equal is not equal. Non-marriage institutions do not convey the full range of over 1,100 rights and responsibilities as true marriage. But that’s almost beside the point. Separate institutions automatically create a class system. Those who are denied the institutions available to the majority become second-class citizens.

Is a marriage a right or a privilege? It doesn’t matter. Our country’s founding principles aren’t about technicalities, details, or loopholes. They’re about grand principles that inform our values and legal process. Our founders believed in equal rights: that all people are created equal and should have equal access and recourse under the law. Constitutionally, we are not a country that believes in second-class citizens.

Let me restate that, plainly. Our national Constitution, which is the entire foundation of both our government and legal system, instructs our government to apply the value of equality of all citizens to its legal transactions with those citizens.

Our government isn’t doing that, and it’s wrong.

Not because we’re denying gay people marriage through Defense of Marriage acts and Proposition 8’s.

Because we’re treating gay people differently under the law.

Yes, following the publication of the final book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, author J.K. Rowlings did out Dumbledore to an audience at New York City’s Carnegie Hall. We’ll return to that. But for the moment, let us stick solely to the canon material established in the published works.

In the first few books and movies, I didn’t really mind the exclusion. For one thing, they do contain a great gay metaphor (more on that in a moment). Besides, the first three or four volumes are really about kids, to whom sexuality remains foreign and uncertain. Gay taunting among kids is still about conforming to the norm, but not so much in terms of actual sexual behavior.

But by the fifth and sixth incarnations (Order of the Phoenix and The Half-Blood Prince), the characters are finally growing old enough to feel sexual and romantic desire. The latest volumes address that both directly – such as Harry’s fumbling, nascent relationship with Cho – and indirectly – for example, in Order of the Phoenix, a proclamation by Dolores Umbridge that boys and girls must remain 8 inches apart at all times.

Are there no gay kids? The fact that she specifies boys and girls suggests that boys and boys, or girls and girls, snogging doesn’t even occur to her – a disregard that is its own form of defamation (something else I’ll discuss more in a moment).

But is it Umbridge who’s pretending homosexuality doesn’t exist, or the filmmakers who know exactly how the viewing public would react to the inclusion of gay content in a “kid-friendly” film that’s already inspired controversy with religious folks? Or is it the author who, for whatever reason, has excluded gay content from her writing?

Certainly, I would have been surprised if there had been any gay content in the earliest tomes. Even to me, they would have seemed out of place. But Harry and friends are growing up. When are they going to learn that the world is a much more diverse place than many people want it to be?

The Gay Metaphor

1. A sense of differentness

Harry lives with his abusive aunt and uncle, the Dursleys, who pride themselves on their utter normalcy. He feels different from them; he finds his reactions to, and interactions with, the world do not conform to the Dursleys’ idea of how he “should.” They punish him for his difference. As Michael Bronski argues,

“Harry’s differentness makes him an outcast in his own family. He is physically, emotionally, and mentally mistreated by the Dursleys. Their cruelty is calculated and dangerous — he is, in essence, repeatedly queer-bashed by them (1).”

Harry is confused by his strange feelings and physical actions because he has no context in which to understand them.

2. A sense of isolation

Homosexuality (like magic) is not something that clearly stands out in the normal world, unless one acts it out. Homosexuals look just like heterosexuals. Wizards look just like Muggles. The result is, Harry has no way of knowing if he’s the only person in the world feeling this way or not. And because he lives in his aunt’s and uncle’s world of so-called normalcy, he’s been socialized to believe there’s only one way that’s right (heterosexuality, muggle-ness) and anything else is a freak-show. So Harry feels very alone and isolated.

3. Socially punished for his differentness

Unfortunately, Harry can’t do about his magical nature. He inherited it from his parents, and it manifests at times when it’s not “appropriate” or safe. Everyone possesses an intrinsic drive to act upon the desires they feel. And when Harry acts on his desires, like with the snake at the zoo in the first book, it’s more instinctual than conscious. And he’s punished for it – isolated, taunted, demeaned. It’s amazing he turns out as well-adjusted in the books as he is, after living with such abuse for 11 years.

4. Discovers people like himself

Ah, but then! He discovers that he is not alone. Fortunately for Harry, the others of his kind find him and induct him into a secret, hidden world. He learns that the so-called normal, Muggle world is filled with secret places where people like himself can gather and be themselves. They don’t have to hide or pretend. They can just be true to themselves. And what a relief and pleasure!

And in Harry’s case, not only is he accepted, he’s celebrated! How delightful it would be to discover a world in which homosexuality is the norm! In fact, this is almost the most appealing aspect of Harry Potter as gay metaphor – the fantasy wish fulfillment of finding a world wherein one is not a persecuted minority.

5. Making peace with himself

Through the support that Harry receives for his different-ness in the wizarding world – or, more precisely, the realization that in the wizarding world he’s only different in personality and history, not in nature – Harry begins to make peace with his newfound identity as a wizard. It’s easier for him, because there is an entire secret universe (or underground) wherein wizardry is the norm. For gays in the real world, making peace with one’s homosexuality is more of an on-going process, and can take longer, because it must be done in the face of continuous social messages that homosexuality is wrong or freakish.

The Limitations of the Gay Metaphor

In the movie adaptation of “Order of the Phoenix,” Harry’s cousin Dudley Dursley and his gang taunt Harry. Nothing new. But this time, they actually gay-bait him. “Who’s Cedric?” Dudley asks. “Your boyfriend?”

This is the only explicit gay reference that exists in the entire Harry Potter universe (so far – again, remember, we’re solely referencing the canon material at this point). And it’s not literal because, no, Cedric wasn’t Harry’s boyfriend. In fact, Cedric and Harry have both been romantically interested in the same girl.

The inclusion of the gay epithet also cuts both ways. On the one hand, they’re equating homophobia with bad, because Dudley is a bad guy (okay, yeah, like the most minor bad guy in the Harry Potter world, but still). At the same time, they’re also equating Harry having a boyfriend with bad; the prospect is a put-down. It makes me sad that the only explicit gay reference in six books and five movies is negative.

And metaphor does not substitute for actual content. Particularly in works as subtextually rich as the Harry Potter universe, readers can see whatever they want in the metaphor. I imagine a religious conservative (if they’re even willing to read Harry Potter) might see themselves in Harry’s shoes, as an outsider who knows how the world really works, and victimized by those who are willfully ignorant of the Truth. And then lo! Harry discovers a world unto itself wherein others see as clearly as he does that the world is divided in black and white, good versus evil, with little in-between. Suddenly his (religious) worldview is confirmed, understood, accepted, and reinforced.

My point is, the source material is so ambiguous that anyone can read virtually any subtext they want into it. Metaphor can’t substitute for explicit content because it is so tenuous, nebulous, and open to interpretation.

Defamation by Omission

It seems extremely unlikely that that author JK Rowling has excluded gay content because she’s anti-gay. She has outed Dumbledore and treated the issue respectfully and quite matter-of-factly. She describes her books as a “prolonged argument for tolerance” (2). It is certainly true that

Throughout the series, she has been diligent not only in her narrative exploration of bigotry and intolerance, but also in her commitment to the inclusion of characters of different races, cultures, classes, and degrees of physical beauty. It would, in fact, have been a glaring omission had none of the inhabitants of her world been homosexual (3).

Also, I completely respect that as an author, she has an obligation to do what’s right for the story she’s telling, and that may well exclude any clear reference gay characters. So, I don’t think it’s some kind of moral wrong for her not to have included gay content. Nevertheless, I would argue that outing Dumbledore posthumously does not satisfy the glaring omission referenced above. First, he is apparently not openly gay, given that it’s never spelled out in the books. And the books and movies do not contain any other gay content. So we are left with a disappointing absence of gay content in the published works.

Perpetuating the media invisibility of gay people foments ignorance and prejudice among non-gay people. It contributes to the false perception that homosexuality is exceedingly rare, or even not real. The rarer the incidence of homosexuality, the easier it is to consider and treat it as freakish. “The unknown is more frightening – and easier to make things up about” (4).

This is why the closet is so destructive to the gay community. People who know gay people (even, in many cases, if they only know the gay people vicariously) are much less likely to perceive gayness stereotypically or prejudicially. Consider the Parasocial Contact Hypothesis, which contends “that positive experiences with minority characters can reduce prejudice in a manner similar to direct contact with people,” says study author Edward Schiappa (5).

The social milieu in which we live establishes the definition of “normal,” and it’s taught by our parents, friends, teachers, and increasingly BY THE MEDIA IMAGES to which we are continuously exposed. We learn that certain things are okay or appropriate, and other things are not. Very, very few of these things are intrinsically okay or not okay. It is our social milieu that makes that determination. And those who do not conform are punished, most frequently in subtle ways (teasing from peers, unspoken disappointment from parents, etc.) but also in explicit and occasionally violent ways (gay-bashing, rejection, etc.).

Harry Potter, like it or not, is part of the “media images” to which the paragraph above refers. On the one hand, it teaches that difference is okay because it embraces cultural and racial diversity. But the utter lack of any gay content means gay people are omitted from the diversity. By implication, they do not exist at all in Harry’s world. Or if they do, they are so deeply closeted we never see them as gay people, and that implies even in the wizard world, it is a source of shame.

Michael Jensen of AfterElton.com states it nicely:

As for those who ask why there has to be a gay character in every book, movie, TV show, all I can say is “catch a clue.” There are so few gay characters in children’s literature as to be non-existent and that is a shame. Kids learn about differences from a very early age and age-appropriate information about sexual orientation should be treated no differently than any other information (6).

Given Rowling’ obvious and emphatic inclusion of cultural and racial diversity, the exclusion is all the more notable. Besides, even if it did fit the internal logic of the story, we still read Harry Potter in a larger context, and Rowling is part of an overarching exclusion of gay people in the media (particularly in the fantasy genre).

Most puzzling, Rowling argues that Dumbledore’s gayness is “in the book [Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows]. It’s very clear in the book” (7). Please see my review and analsysis of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows for more specific comments on the supposed gay content of that volume. Suffice it to say, the reader only knows that Dumbledore is gay because Rowling told us so after the fact.

I am certainly not meaning to accuse her of homophobia. In fact, I am incredibly grateful that she outed Dumbledore at all. But neither am I going to let her off the hook for being complicit in a larger issue. Is she personally responsible for including gay content in her books in order to take some kind of stand? Of course not. Does her lack of gay content contribute to the issue? That’s a trickier question.

In researching this essay, I came across a forum whose readers were discussing the possible inclusion of gay themes in the Harry Potter books (8). I will list some of the interesting comments, along with a response:

• “Moreover, I dont think that the HP books are the appropriate place for social commentary…” Has this person even read the books? Rowlings has demonstrated a tremendous ability to incorporate thematic messages into a compelling story. Consider the story threads about the racial issue of pureblood wizards versus mixed-bloods versus Muggles, or Hermione’s championing equal rights for the House Elves.
• “I suppose what I’m saying is don’t use gay characters unless there is some definable reason fordoing so.” This is a common argument for the exclusion of gay people. It suggests gay people should be excluded from representation unless their gayness itself is relevant to the story. But that’s beside the point. I want gay characters in books like these for two reasons: (1) so I can see myself represented in a fantasy world I love, and (2) so others can be exposed to gay people, even vicariously, and reap the benefits (see my comments on the Parasocial Contact Hypothesis above, as well as Michael Jensen’s answer to this issue).
• “[She shouldn't include gay content] No matter how dark they get, Jo knows that the books have a huge child fanbase…” This comment reflects a widespread sentiment that has always puzzled me. People are more willing to read or watch something violent or scary than they are to read or watch something portraying people making love (straight or gay). The former is more socially acceptable than the latter, and that has always struck me as backwards priorities. So it’s okay for the Harry Potter books to have grown increasingly mature in terms of its content (darker, scarier, and more violent), but if Rowlings were to add in a sentence about Colin holding hands with his boyfriend, that’s too much? I cannot say why Rowlings has not made any gay characters or themes clear in her books, but if this has anything to do with it, I call that pandering.

Conclusion

A lack of gay content does not lessen the value or quality of the writing. It does not mean that gay readers can’t fully enjoy and appreciate these works or that anyone is going to walk away from these books saying, “Wow, she didn’t include gay characters; therefore, homosexuality really must be wrong!”

It’s still a phenomenal series of books with amazing characters; compelling and well-conceived storylines; and engaging, readable narrative.

What it does mean is that in thousands of pages and well over 300 named characters, homosexuality remains excluded and ignored, as though it doesn’t even exist. At best, while Rowling has given us a gay hero in Dumbledore, he is

• the only one, alone and isolated.
• closeted, for reasons we cannot fathom.
• and while he might have been an awesome gay role model, those two issues dilute his usefulness in that role

I can only guess that Rowlings intended these books to be, on some level, true to life. Otherwise, why the racial and cultural diversity? Why the contemporary themes? Why the thinly veiled social commentary? But the books cannot be true to life if they fully exclude gay people.

I suppose the exclusion of gay content is like abstaining from the issue. But my question is, can an abstention be truly neutral? If it’s not part of the solution, is it part of the problem?

Let me conclude on a positive note, with another quote from the well-written Mr. Jensen of AfterElton.com:

So for the fact these adored books now include a gay character, however tangentially, I applaud Rowling for what she has done. Do I wish she had done it earlier? Absolutely. Do I understand why didn’t do it sooner? Not really. But she has done it now and it is a great thing for all of us (9).

—————————

(1) Michael Bronski, “There’s Something About Harry,” BostonPhoenix.com, 3 July 2003, http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02977459.htm (retrieved 15 July 2007).

(2) Hanna Siegel, “Rowling Lets Dumbledore Out of the Closet,” ABCNews.com, 20 October 2007, http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=3755544 (retrieved 15 May 2008).

(3) Rebecca Traister, “Dumbledore? Gay. J.K. Rowling? Chatty.” Salon.com, 23 October 2007, http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/10/23/dumbledore/ (retrieved 15 May 2008).

(4) “Part I: Identifying Homophobia: Recognizing Homophobia in Action,” ChallengingHomophobia.net, 1998, http://www.challenginghomophobia.net/ch/rec_hp.asp (retrieved 15 July 2007).

(5) Edward Schiappa, Peter B. Gregg, & Dean E. Hewes, “The Parasocial Contact Hypothesis,” Communication Monographs, March 2005 (Vol. 72, No. 1), pp. 92-115.

As an interesting aside, note that Schiappa, Gregg, and Hewes surveyed 245 college students and found a significant correlation between positive experiences of the series Will & Grace and lower levels of anti-gay prejudice. “The more viewers watched and enjoyed Will and supporting character Jack, the lower their level of prejudice,” Schiappa says. Most notably, such correlations were “strongest among those with the least amount of prior direct personal contact with gay men.” He adds, “The most important finding was this: The fewer gay friends or co-workers [study participants] reported, the stronger the relationship between viewing frequency and lower prejudice.”
Edward Schiappa, Peter B. Gregg, & Dean E. Hewes, “Can One TV Show Make a Difference? Will & Grace and the Parasocial Contact Hypothesis,” Journal of Homosexuality, forthcoming.

(6) Michael Jensen, “So Dumbledore Is Gay. What Does It All Mean?” AfterElton.com, 22 October 2007, http://www.afterelton.com/blog/michaeljensen/dumbledore-gay-what-does-it-mean (retrieved 14 May 2008).

(7) Philip Marchand, “Dumbledore Gay From the Start?” TheStar.com, 24 October 2007, http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/Books/article/269817 (retrieved 15 May 2008).

(8) Miscellaneous postings. Please note, this forum (”Homosexuality and Harry Potter”) seems to be defunct. I was able to access it only through Google’s cache. Nevertheless, here is the link:
http://www.thepotterpolice.co.uk/hpinactionipb/index.php?showtopic=815

(9) Michael Jensen, “So Dumbledore Is Gay. What Does It All Mean?” AfterElton.com, 22 October 2007, http://www.afterelton.com/blog/michaeljensen/dumbledore-gay-what-does-it-mean (retrieved 14 May 2008).