Consider the set back DADT posed to the Clinton Administration, and how it compromised health care reform.  I’m sure Rahmbo has. Despite an evolution on DADT in the public mind, moving the issue to the forefront will undermine Obama’s efforts to extend affordable health care to all Americans.

I submit that more gays are harmed by the lack of health insurance than by DADT.  And more gays are harmed by the global financial crisis than DADT.  These are broad American problems that are too important to allow distractions from any narrow activista interest group.

You can’t expect smart progressives to take up polarizing fights on issues effecting a small subset of Americans at the expense of possibly losing political wars of paramount national importance. Be patient.

Brian, it’s still early in the Obama presidency.  Don’t get angry yet.  There will be time to hold him accountable.  Timing is everything.   Imagine you’re a senior White House advisor.  When would you tell him to take up the issue if your interest was serving the American people and President Obama instead of just the LGBT community?  I’d like to see him take this issue up right after the 2010 election, preferably in a lame duck session.

Among the objectionable scenes is one in which Bruno — a gay Austrian fashionista played by Baron Cohen — appears to have anal sex with a man on camera. In another, the actor goes on a hunting trip and sneaks naked into the tent of one of the fellow hunters, an unsuspecting non-actor.

Admittedly I don’t know how graphic these scenes get, but I’m willing to bet that an equally graphic scene involving heterosexual sex would not provoke the NC-17 rating. I’m reminded of the cuts made to Stanley Kubrick’s underrated classic Eyes Wide Shut, in which his shots were digitally altered in the famous orgy scene so as to block out a couple instances of lesbian sex, thereby reducing the rating from NC-17 to R.

This story comes on the heels of an even more bizarre story: Times Online reported a couple weeks ago that I Love You Phillip Morris, a new comedy starring Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor as incarcerated gay lovers, from the guys who brought you Bad Santa, may go straight to DVD in the United States for lack of an American distributor:

Film industry insiders said the movie, which features a graphic sex scene and frequent references to gay sex, had fallen foul of anti-gay prejudice in America.

I’m skeptical that this movie won’t eventually find a distributor, but the fact that it’s even having trouble is a little startling. In the wake of Brokeback Mountain and Milk – both profitable films that portray gay sex and deal explicitly with gay subject matter – it seems a bit bizarre that Hollywood would conclude that American audiences wouldn’t be open to this movie.

It shouldn’t be that startling, however. Homosexuality in film tends to fall into a few limited categories:

1. Tragedy: gay characters ultimately meet with a tragic fate, usually death. See, e.g., Brokeback Mountain, Milk, Philadelphia.
2. Comic relief: gay characters or homosexuality in general is used as a gag. See, e.g., I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, any movie with a hilariously flamboyant gay dude.
3. Female companions: gay characters exist solely as the fun-loving, sassy friend of the lead heterosexual female, esp. common in romantic comedies. See, e.g., My Best Friend’s Wedding.
4. Murderers: gay characters are psychotic killers. See, e.g., Monster, Rope.

I Love You Phillip Morris doesn’t appear to fall into any of these categories. The gay characters here are not mere comic relief, they’re the center of the story. And while homosexuality was also at the center of I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, the joke there was OMG THOSE STRAIGHT GUYS HAVE TO PRETEND TO BE GAY, THAT’S TOTALLY ZANY, and while I haven’t seen it, I’m told that at one point in the film the characters are told to kiss to prove their homosexuality lest they face some severe consequence I can’t remember, and the joke is that that would be just too gay so they don’t do it. I Love You Phillip Morris doesn’t appear to be going for that kind of humor.

I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, incidentally, made over $120 million domestically. You hear that, and you hear that I Love You Phillip Morris is struggling to find an American distributor, and you basically want to shoot yourself in the fucking head.

Trailer for I Love You Phillip Morris after the jump (no trailer out yet for the Bruno movie).

1. Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?
2. Does Proposition 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
3. If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

You can find links here to all the briefs and arguments being made on both sides for an in-depth discussion of those issues. The gist of the argument for overturning Prop 8 hinges on a distinction in the California constitution between a “revision” and an “amendment. From one of the petitioners’ briefs (emphasis mine):

Although no case has set forth the precise metes and bounds that distinguish an amendment from a revision, this Court’s cases have made clear that measures that are consistent with the existing purpose and structure of the Constitution are permissible amendments, while those that seek to alter its core precepts are not. By abrogating the fundamental principle of equality for a group defined by a suspect classification, Proposition 8 plainly falls into the category of a revision.

Upholding Proposition 8 would establish, under California law, that any fundamental right can be taken away from any minority by a simple majority of their fellow citizens. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection, which the people adopted to protect minorities from majoritarian discrimination, would be transformed into a conditional guarantee.

I’m obviously no expert on California constitutional law, but it strikes me as a solid argument. But to me the whole notion of allowing any amendments to a constitution to be passed by a mere simple majority vote is a little nutty. That the framers of California’s constitution included the distinction between revisions and amendments is a saving grace, and it is difficult to conceive of when such a distinction would be more applicable than here. Equal protection provisions are the classic example of when countermajoritarianism is necessary and desirable, and California law has made clear that LGBT people are a protected class whereby strict scrutiny is applied to equal protection claims.

There’s the separate question of whether it would be politically helpful for the court to overturn Prop 8, or whether the backlash would be so strong as to be overwhelming. I’ve always been of the view that concerns about backlash are overblown. If Prop 8 is overturned, gay couples will start getting married in the most populous state in the union. While gay marriage will still be far from normal, it will become exponentially more commonplace, and the benefits to society will become stark and identifiable. And once that happens – however it happens – that’s the ballgame. Fear and loathing will increasingly give way to compassion and common sense. This isn’t a situation like abortion, where Roe gives legal protection to an unpleasant practice that some find murderous, making it easy to sustain a prolonged political movement in opposition. Pro-gay marriage decisions will give rise only to a bunch of very happy couples raising families. There might be a temporary backlash, sure, but it’s going to be awfully difficult to keep stirring up outrage over something so joyful and innocent.

Meanwhile, this ad made me cry:

Other interesting results:

• 8 in 10 Americans say they would be “comfortable” or “enthusiastic” about an African-American or a woman running
• 53% say they would have “some reservations” or “be uncomfortable” with a Mormon candidate
• 19% say the same about a Jewish candidate
• 44% say the same about an evangelical Christian
• 66% say the same about a candidate over the age of seventy

Almost certainly the number of Americans out there who would actually have misgivings about these kinds of candidates is higher than any poll will ever indicate (people tend not to like to admit to their prejudices), but it’s still interesting to see that people are just as uncomfortable with Mormons as they are with gays. Ironic that Mitt Romney, who is basically pinning his presidential hopes to gay-bashing, must overcome the same prejudice against himself that he is now fomenting against others.

Watch the ads. It’s a simple but too often overlooked argument.