As a gay 'nerd', I don't want my money going to benefit homophobic Ender's Game author Orson Scott Card in any way
Thousands are gathering in San Diego this week for Comic-Con International, America's biggest celebration of all things nerdy – not just comics, but movies, TV shows, novels video games, board games. If it's sci-fi, fantasy or superhero-based, it's represented somewhere on the convention center's sprawling 2.6m square feet of floor space.
Among the properties hoping to make an impact is the sci-fi movie Ender's Game, based on the novel by Orson Scott Card. Distributor Lionsgate Entertainment is making a big push. The stars are in attendance to present clips to the fans, and the movie has a big black hangar-shaped pavilion directly across from the convention centre, unmissable to the guests lining up outside.
Ender's Game needs to make a good impression because it has a serious PR problem. Novelist Orson Scott Card is a notorious anti-gay activist who has previously all but called for the overthrow of the American government if gay people are granted the same rights as fellow citizens. He served on the board of a lobbying organisation, the National Organization for Marriage, that wants to redefine marriage as a strictly Christian, strictly procreational institution.
Earlier this year Card was announced as the writer for a DC Comics Superman story. The news led to an outcry and calls for a boycott. Chris Sprouse, the artist hired to draw Card's story, backed out, and DC quietly dropped the comic.
As I wrote for this site back in February, I planned to boycott the Superman story to keep my money out of Card's pocket. I also said I would not buy a ticket to Ender's Game.
Gay nerd activist group Geeks Out is also pushing a boycott. Card has already been paid to have his work adapted for this movie, but if the movie does well, that benefits Card's bank balance in direct and indirect ways. His books will enjoy a bump in sales, and studios will seek other works for adaptation. Any endorsement of Card's work, or of adaptations of his work, swells his coffers and swells his divisive and damaging political causes.
Lionsgate sees this connection, and they're worried. They put out a statement last week distancing themselves from the author and outlining their commitment to LGBT issues. They pledged to host a premiere of Ender's Game that would benefit LGBT causes. They also claimed that the views of the National Organization for Marriage were "completely irrelevant to a discussion of Ender's Game", which strikes me as archly disingenuous, but perhaps this giant entertainment conglomerate regards money as a trivial thing?
Card himself seems to understand that he has placed his reputation and his continued financial success at stake by standing opposed to progress. He put out a craven and wretched statement of his own this month, in which he managed to say three extraordinary things.
First, he said that Ender's Game has nothing to do with political issues "that did not exist when the book was written in 1984". It's extraordinarily narcissistic to imagine that gay people didn't want full equality in the mid-80s. It was still illegal for two consenting adults of the same sex to engage in sexual activity in parts of the US in 1984, so maybe marriage wasn't the top priority.
Second, he claimed that his side had lost the fight against marriage equality. The ban on gay marriage in California had been upheld as unconstitutional, and Card anticipates a domino effect across the United States. He's broadly right in his analysis, but his friends at the National Organization for Marriage continue their fight against the inevitable. There was a time Card would throw over the government in defense of his principles. Now he'll throw out his principles for better box office.
Third, he asked for tolerance from "the victorious proponents of gay marriage".
Tolerance.
You will note that he did not rescind his earlier statements. He did not amend or soften his position. He did not apologise for being an active agent in the persecution and inequality of gay people. He did not even say that he would break his ties to the National Organization for Marriage. He certainly did not seek to make amends.
He's not sorry. He only wants us to stop talking about it, so that his movie doesn't have to deal with negative press. Heaven knows what he'll say when the movie leaves theatres. And he wants us to show him tolerance.
Here is my answer to Orson Scott Card: you have my tolerance.
I tolerate your right to get married. I tolerate your right to build a family, just as I would tolerate your decision not to. I tolerate your right to adopt. I tolerate your right to share your financial burdens with your partner. I tolerate your right to visit your partner in hospital. I tolerate your right to marry in a church or out of it. I tolerate your right to have your marriage recognised by the state and by others.
I tolerate your freedom. I tolerate your books in libraries. I tolerate your presence in schools. I tolerate your right to hold hands with your partner in a public space. I tolerate your right to be open about who you love without fear of recrimination from neighbours, employers, or churches.
I tolerate your religion. So long as you don't seek to impose your views on people who don't share them, I gladly tolerate your right to worship and your right to express your beliefs. I tolerate your existence.
Do not assume that my tolerance extends to indulgence. Tolerance doesn't mean that I stand silent while you rail against me. Tolerance does not require me to abandon my own financial power as a consumer. Tolerance does not oblige me to support artists who are unrepentant bigots.
When we sought your tolerance, we weren't asking you to buy a ticket to a movie. You have my tolerance, Orson. You have always had my tolerance.
Now I'm going to boycott your movie.
Tolerate that.