"Dumbledore is gay", says J.K. Rowling according to AP, dropping this bombshell last Friday, almost three months after the publication of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the final installment of her series. According to her, Gellert Grindewald, who went on to become the second Most Dangerous Wizard of All Time, was the love of Albus Dumbledore's life.

That Dumbledore was gay didn't come as a major surprise to many of us. While Elphias Doge's paean made us suspect he had a crush on his brilliant classmate, it was Bathilda Bagshot's description, relayed by Rita Skeeter, of the relationship between Gellert Grindewald and Albus Dumbledore that had some readers wondering about them. The two young men would spend their days together and, after dark, send owls back and forth: for many of us this was reminiscent  of our own first infatuation. Young love, new love, teenagers in love.

"Falling in love can blind us," said Rowling, and young Albus seems to have been blinded to the true nature of Gellert. Still, he loved, and that loss was "his great tragedy" according to Rowling.

But though Dumbledore and Grindewald are dead, the consequences of their long ago love are very real and very present in today's world. The reaction from socially conservative anti-Potter Christians was swift and, to say the least, unsettling.

Rita Skeeter said that the Dumbledore/Potter relationship had been called "unhealthy, even sinister" and that Dumbledore took an "unnatural" interest in the boy (DH, page 27, US hardcover).  While this could be easily dismissed as, "It's Rita Skeeter, for crying out loud," there have been comments in various blogs that echoed these sentiments, in light of the recent revelations.

One of the more troubling themes I've seen in some conservative blogs have been that Dumbledore and Grindewald shared a destructive passion, one that led to Ariana Dumbledore's death, and brought Albus himself much pain.  This type of comment leads one to believe that gay love has serious negative consequences.  I'd have been happier if somewhere in Rowling's world, there was a happy gay couple in contrast to the rather sad one of Albus / Gellert

The other upsetting theme is not that Dumbledore was gay, but that he repented and remained celibate, thus fulfilling the conservative's theory that a person can "recover" from homosexuality, further implying that the only good homosexual is one who isn't practicing homosexuality.  Personally, I don't see this as Dumbledore's motive. Like Snape, he loved one person.

Overall, extreme social conservatives appear dismayed that a character in a children's book has been identified as gay and seem to believe that Rowling should never have brought it up. Protect the children, you know.

However, these are the people who want her books banned anyhow, for "promoting" witchcraft, Satanism and Heaven knows what else.  So ... it's not like they were going to embrace the books even before the Headmaster of Hogwarts was outted. Now they can add to their list of complaints that the books are trying to promote homosexuality and lure children into a homosexual lifestyle.

Still, I think the majority of reactions have been rather positive. When they heard the revelation, the audience at Carnegie Hall applauded.  Dumbledore, despite his almost Machiavellian tactics in Deathly Hallows, is a kind, beloved, powerful wizard, and an excellent teacher and Headmaster.  His being gay is just a facet of a complex character. It makes him more interesting, and more human, and adds to the message of tolerance and inclusiveness that the books strive for.

Rowling's books have, on average, a good mix of characters: Michael Goldstein is presumably Jewish, the Parvati twins are Indian, Cho Chang Asian. Blaise Zabini and Angelina Johnson are Black, Seamus Finnigan is Irish. The Weasleys are poor, Justin Finch-Fletchley was "down for Eton." There seems to have been some effort made to present a slice of Britain, to show religious, racial and economic diversity. Not so when it comes to sexuality. Heteronormativity was the name of the game, to the point where it itself became suspect. Surely someone had to be gay in the Wizarding World?  Until now, nothing was portrayed: no gay couples, and the characters whose futures we saw all grew up and married and had kids.  There was no real excuse for not talking about any potential gay couples, teachers or students. It didn't have to be blatant, it just could have been mentioned, acknowledging a certain percentage of the population. This is even more important, in my opinion, because the books were written for young people: a glimpse of "themselves" in a popular book would be a positive thing for young people struggling with their own sexuality.

She had, really, nothing to lose by "outting" Dumbledore: the extreme social conservatives have already rejected the books and the mushy middle doesn't really care. However, the slashers amongst us are thrilled at finally have a real canon ship. I am eagerly awaiting the fanfic that is sure to come.

While I wish that it had been  "canon," rather than an afterthought in an interview, it's good to see a gay character, especially a major and beloved one, come out of the proverbial closet.