Recently, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling outed her beloved character Albus Dumbledore as a homosexual. The move was met with controversy in a culture that, despite its modernity, remains uncomfortable with alternative lifestyles. Rowling is allowed whatever artistic and political freedoms she desires, but her revelation does offer us an opportunity to reassess traditional values and question the place of homosexuality in a free society.
Rowling has gone on record in saying that her work is a vehicle for promoting tolerance and that Dumbledore's outing is a perpetuation of this. But liberals and progressives often overestimate the level of homophobia in the Western world. Although the United States is still a little behind some other countries, acceptance of homosexuality has skyrocketed in recent decades. One need only survey our popular culture to see that Americans are far more comfortable with different sexual orientations than in the past. The hate-inspired murder of Matthew Shepard in 1998, for instance, is very much an exception to the rule.
Yet the far left is never truly satisfied with social progress. They crusade for an ill-defined utopia of equality that can never and will never exist. America, once enveloped in the shadow of bigotry, is now a land of tolerance and freedom in truth as well as name. But nothing is ever good enough. With the civil rights movement having achieved the only equality that matters ' equality before the law ' the left has latched on to gay rights as a political tool to prolong the life of an ideology that is going bankrupt. Lacking any evidence of genuinely widespread oppression against homosexuals, they can only cling desperately to the issue of same-sex marriage.
Homosexuals are allowed to marry in Massachusetts and can forge civil unions, essentially the same legal arrangement, in nine other states. But what we should be questioning is not the issue of same-sex marriage, but the issue of marriage itself. Marriage is a religious sacrament that should not be recognized by the government. In fact, there is absolutely no need for the state to officially recognize any unions between individuals, regardless of sexual orientation. Two people who are legitimately in love do not require a piece of paper to announce it. Our culture is far too fixated on materialism and meaningless formalities.
However, as long as there is government-sanctioned marriage, it should be opened to homosexuals in all states. Churches are private institutions and can choose what unions to recognize based on their beliefs and preferences. But for the government to deny the economic benefits of marriage to homosexuals is discrimination. The argument that they should have civil unions is invalid because it admits marriage is a religious sacrament that violates the separation of church and state. Once we either abolish government-sanctioned marriage or extend it to homosexuals without qualification, with hope the left will stop whining.
The only other instance of oppression worth mentioning is the U.S. military's don't ask
don't tell policy enacted by the Clinton administration. This is worth doing away with as long as there is no subsequent evidence of disruption in the ranks. Britain had a similar policy that it scrapped in 2000 and its military remains intact. As long as we have similar success, openly homosexual soldiers should certainly be allowed to serve their country. After all, the military needs all the help it can get right now. But if it proved to be a problem, nothing should be allowed to compromise the effectiveness of our armed forces. Too much is at stake.
It might surprise some to learn that homosexuals are legally permitted to adopt children in almost every state. The American Psychological Association has attested to the fact that, despite stereotypes, children raised by such couples are just as likely to grow up physically and emotionally healthy. One might argue there is no substitute for a father and mother, but this is a far better arrangement than having children growing up in broken homes or as wardens of the state.
The only force that really gives the overzealous liberals their fuel is the equally overzealous ignorance of the far right. Much of their antipathy toward homosexuality is borne of fear that it will contribute to the collapse of our social fabric. Despite the religious right's inclination to spout fiery damnation, I fail to see a legitimate threat here. Once the conservatives accept that permitting homosexuality is not a precursor to Armageddon, the liberals will have much less fuel left in their tanks.
Regardless of Dumbledore's bedroom behavior, the wizarding world, as well as our own, will be just fine.
Joe Vance is senior journalism major. Send him an e-mail at jv407004@ohiou.edu.
17
Archives
Joe Vance
200711016196midsize.jpeg
