« So, What’d You Do Today While Waiting at the Bus Stop? | Main | So does that mean that a purple nurple is out of the question? »

Dumbledore: Gay. Strict Constructionist Revolt.

dumbledoretime.jpgMichael C. Dorf, a columnist for Findlaw, wrote a somewhat amusing column yesterday about J.K. Rowling’s revelation that Dumbledore was gay and how an originalist would take issue with Rowling’s outing, noting that the original meaning of the Potter text doesn’t support her contention.

Given that the Potter books, now complete, make no mention of Dumbledore’s sexuality, Rowling would not appear to have any authority to declare the print version of Dumbledore gay, straight or bi. Her views on such matters are naturally of interest to fans of her books, but the work must stand on its own.
These principles may seem obvious enough when considering the relation of a fiction writer’s intentions to her text, but they are highly contentious when it comes to legal documents. In the balance of this column, I will explain why James Madison is no more of an authority on the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, than J.K. Rowling is on Dumbledore’s sexual orientation.

I’ll admit it’s an amusing conceit for a column and one with the potential for serious amounts of satire. But Dorf doesn’t seem to be kidding around. I haven’t read any of his past columns, but judging from the tone and tenor of this one, Dorf seems deadly serious:

In other words, even if some of Us the People think that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause is best read in 2007 to permit Dumbledore to marry whomever he chooses, regardless of sex, the Supreme Court might nonetheless decide not to recognize his right to do so until it sees a clearer social consensus on the point. The one thing the Court should not say, however, is that Dumbledore cannot marry a man in 2007 simply because same-sex marriage was not allowed in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

Umm. Mr. Dorf — lighten up, big guy. It’s just a book, k? Do you apply Constitutional interpretation to movies, too? And if so, can you explicate the meaning behind the pivotal scene in Judd Apatow’s Knocked Up, in which Katherine Heigl’s drunken character — horny beyond belief and in the throes of lovemaking — tells her sexual partner, played by Seth Rogen, who is fumbling with a condom: “Just do it.” Maybe you can solve their ongoing debate: Did she mean, “Just do it,” as in hurry up and get the condom on, or “just do it,” as in, forget the condom and fuck me now?

What do you think the Framers of the Constitution would say?

| Comments (2)


Comments

having had dorf as a teacher, I can tell you he's a pretentious jackass with no talent for teaching. He only agrees with those inside his political spectrum and is a prototypical Ivory Tower professor--one with no real world experience or talent. So don't listen to him, no one who actually is involved in the real world of law does.

Talk about a guy in most desperate need of a bj.