My No on 8 Video

This is a somewhat-successful first attempt at using YouTube's "Direct Upload" feature, and it's my appeal to California voters to vote against the discriminatory Proposition 8. The audio is out of sync and it cuts off the last sentence, but the bulk of the message is there.



The video cuts off at the end, the last bit was supposed to say "The law is meant to protect the people, not to harm them. Vote No on Prop 8."

Also of note is this video, narrated by Samuel L. Motherfucking Jackson, and describing a little bit more the history of discrimination we should be turning our backs on, not embracing like a long-lost friend.

I now pronounce you...

So great non-filmmaking news today: the Supreme Court of the state of California (where I live) has just overturned the standing ban on gay marriage, declaring it "unconstitutional".

Now, I'm not looking to get married any time soon, but it's seven flavors of bullshit to have that option refused to me. So it's great that the state Supreme Court sees it the same way. But of course, there are the jackasses who now want to change the state constitution to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples.

First of all, it always astonishes me that these people insist that the proponents of gay marriage are attempting to "redefine" what marriage is, when in fact they are the ones changing laws and amending constitutions in an attempt to -- say it with me -- redefine marriage to fit into their small-brained, bigoted worldview.

I have yet to have a single person give me a valid reason that "marriage" should be restricted to opposite-sex couples. Hint: "The Bible says" automatically invalidates your reason, because the Bible isn't the basis of American law. But that's a digression I'm in no particular mood for, because cooler heads have prevailed today.

In a surprising turn of events, Governor Schwarzenegger, who has repeatedly vetoed attempts to legalize gay marriage, has stated: "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this [ruling]."

Indeed, although he has not supported gay marriage, citing Proposition 22, he has supported domestic partnerships, declaring that the Supreme Court and the voters were the ones who needed to decide about gay marriage. Prop 22 is out and it sounds like he plans to stick to his word. Maybe I need to take back some of the things I've said about him.

Original story here.

Love-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named

So big news if you're a Harry Potter fan (or a Harry Potter hater, I suppose): this last weekend, the magnificent J.K. Rowling gave a Q&A regarding her work, and when asked if Dumbledore ever found "true love", she replied that Dumbledore is gay.

Ignoring the fact that "Dumbledore is gay" is not "yes" -- in fact seems to be "no, because" -- I'm still a little bothered by this, which is ironic. While other gay rights groups will no doubt applaud her for being willing to write such a fantastic character and not let his sexuality compromise his character (as a lesser writer might have done), my objection is that it removes some of the impact of Dumbledore's character, or potentially does.

So Dumbledore had a love affair with Gellert Grindlewald, and that is why it took him so long to step up and defeat him in their "famous duel" (this relationship is set up on the chocolate frog card Harry gets in Book 1) -- he still loved him and he didn't want to think ill of him. Which is great, but couldn't he have loved him even without being gay?

That's the main thing that bothers me: whenever a male character in today's movies, TV, and even books shows any genuine affection for another male character -- even non-sexual affection -- that character is a gay character. You don't see that happen when two female characters share affection, and I think it perpetuates the stereotype that only gay people show affection -- and you don't want people to think you're GAY, do you?

As a role model, I almost feel like this revelation diminishes Dumbledore's compassion, if only in the sense that "oh, well of course he was so nice and emotionally-invested in his relationships. He was gay. That's how they are." No doubt people will start reading a Catholic priest vibe into Dumbledore's intense interest in Harry, which would be the real goddamn shame here.

Look, I love the Harry Potter series. I really do. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was astonishing and, in my view, perfect. I wouldn't have wanted her to do a single thing differently (well, except maybe let Neville finish off Bellatrix Lestrange instead of Mrs. Weasley -- he had more invested in that relationship). And I really do think it's wonderful that she had the courage to write a gay main character, and the talent not to make it obvious.

I just wish that being gay wasn't a prerequisite for male compassion -- although, I guess there's always Harry and Ron's relationship. They clearly love each other very much, and it works out well for them (maybe because they're NOT gay?).

But then, we come to the other problem: homosexuality-as-tragedy. We have yet to have a mainstream gay character whose story does not end in tragedy. The most mainstream gay movie of the last decade was Brokeback Mountain, and that didn't work out. Gay relationships never work out in the media. Even most gay indie films I watch, the boy doesn't get the boy. The best he can hope for is that everyone else accepts who he is and what he wants, but he's not going to get what he wants in the end.

This isn't Rowling's fault, I just wish that if Dumbledore's greatest tragedy had to be loving too much, it didn't have to be "in a gay way."

All that being said, I'm probably just over-thinking it. After all, Dumbledore was the champion of love and reason, who all the good guys looked up to, trusted, and revered in one of the most popular book series ever written. And that probably can't be a bad thing.

I'll still re-read the series many times, and pass it on to my kids someday.