Strap me down to Madame Pomfrey's bed, I'm going through withdrawl...

J.K. Rowling has officially announced the title of the sixth book in the Harry Potter Heptad, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. Apparently, this title was once considered as a working title for the second book, Chamber of Secrets. I'm not sure exactly why that is significant, but there seem to be people who find it intriguing. I guess it goes to the point that certain elements of the second book might come into play and that this book must be filled with things that have been long-simmering within Ms. Rowling's mind.

What does the title tell us about the upcoming book? Nothing really. Ms. Rowling has let it be known that the Half Blood Prince does not refer to Harry or Voldemort. And now there are online communities filled with a flurry of rash guesses and speculations as to all sorts of things the book may be about. To me it suggests this book may deal more with the fascinating elements of genealogy and racism that the past books have touched upon. The pure-blood/mudblood dynamic that has been brewing since the first book and is exemplified by the various characters has always been the most interesting element of Harry's world for me.

Now that the title is confirmed, but since I would rather wait for the book than theorize and conjecture about the plot, I would be much more interested in a release date. While many fans have been waiting since last summer for the latest installment, and for almost 3 years before that, they are generally used to waiting long to get their next fix of Hogwarts. I have only read the books for the first time this past winter, all five in a row, so I contend I have not been weaned properly for this lag time. My wait is as excruciating as a methodone addict in withdrawal. No one told me the sixth book was no where in sight when I started and by the time I realized I would have to wait I just couldn't shake the primal need to press on, page after page, till I had snorted the last available Every Flavor Bean and injected a Pensieve's worth of information into my Weasley-like head. For someone who waits a month between each small installment of the over 40 continuing stories I follow in comic book form, you'd think I would be a pro at this, but no. Perhaps I'm as obsessed as those giddy speculating kids, and don't even know it.

Shoving your sexuality where you won't publicly admit to wanting it...

I was listening to Unflitered on Air America Radio, as I often do to get me rage on in the morning, and they posed an interesting conundrum. John Aravosis, an ex-Republican aide, current-homosexual political activist, was on the show discussing the ethics of outing gay people on Capitol Hill. Aravosis has promised to out gay congressional members and staffers who are actively working towards making the Federal Marriage Amendment (the nice way of saying the "Marriage Ain't For Fags" Amendment) a reality. Is it right to out someone for political purposes? Even if those people are bringing great harm to people?

I'm personally torn. Usually my gut feeling is to fry the bastards, but this is a very difficult, personal thing. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of gay people using sexuality against one another and there is the very real chance that doing so would alienate a potential ally in an otherwise unfriendly office. But then again, if they are supporting the FMA they aren't an ally at all. And yet it's very insensitive towards a very personal process and that's not how liberals operate.

But this isn't about outing your local grocer or a school teacher (even though we can all think of a few limp-wristed pink-dress-shirt-wearing teachers who could have benefited from the honest truth back in high-school). We are talking about outing people who are actively crafting policy that will damn gays and lesbians to second class status. Working for this amendment threatens the community and is as tangible a case of self-loathing as could exist.

The terrible thing about this amendment is that not only will it deny my God-given right to register at William-Sonoma's, but it also could unravel all gay rights legislation in this country. Gay rights are all based upon the relationships we forge with one another, with the gender or who we love. If you make in unconstitutional to recognize such a relationship in one sphere, it's only a hop, skip, and Justice or two on the Supreme Court Bench from denying rights to homosexuals across the board. I know it's paranoid, but I'm not about to sit idly by and pretend it could never happen.

Being closeted infers that the individual recognizes his or her own sexual identity as GLBT but it also denotes a certain amount of fear or insecurity about the reaction one might receive if they came out. If attacking homosexuality in the political sphere, one forgoes one's right to the "protection" of the closet, because this is a PUBLIC denunciation of ones own identity. It's like Jack Ryan who ran on a platform of solid family values and then ruined his marriage through his insistence that his wife engage in sexual play in public sex clubs against her wishes.

Outing is a super complicated issue which I mostly oppose, but this case does have legitimate arguments in favor of the practice. Gays who are working to pass the FMA are essentially making sexual orientation into a political weapon, so perhaps they should be prepared to have it used against them.