Adam Sandler’s new film I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry is causing quite a stir.   In the film, Chuck (Adam Sandler) and Larry (Kevin James) are New York fire fighters (it doesn’t get any more heroic) who enter into a sham gay marriage.  Although the film might not to be everyone's taste (typical Sandler slapstick comedy with lots of homophobic jokes thrown in for good measure), it may tell us alot about the politics of same sex marriage in America.

In the film, Chuck and Larry are both very, very straight, but Larry needs to get married to secure some employment benefits for his children.  They try a domestic partnership first, but it turns out to not be enough.  So, they come to Canada, get hitched, and go back home as a ‘married’ couple.The rest of the story plays out in the typical slap stick comedy form:  a specialist (Steve Buscemi) investigates the couple to see if they are “really” gay, Chuck falls for the lawyer (Jessica Biel) but can’t do anything about it because he is supposed to be gay, the guys at the firehouse shun the gay boys, blah, blah, blah.   Eventually, it all turns out well, with the guys at the firehouse seeing the error of their ways and support Chuck and Larry.  The real gay folks get married, and the real straight folks end up with straight folks, and everyone is supposed to feel good.

The film has generated a considerable debate over gay rights and the representation of gay men and lesbians. 

Some gay rights supporters say it’s an affirmation of tolerance and a repudiation of homophobia.  What about the incessant gay jokes and stereotypes that are played out along the way.  Apparently, its all part of the journey to end homophobia.

Damon Romine, entertainment media director for GLAAD has defended the film.  In a statement in the Boston Herald,  he says “Through this disarming type of comedy, there is this use of stereotypes and slurs, and it holds the mirror up for people to ask ‘Where does this come from? ’At the end of the day, this is a comedy that actually stresses the importance of family and treating others with dignity and respect.  The film actually does send a very strong message. I can’t imagine a studio movie being made five years ago that even dealt with marriage equality and discrimination”.

Others are rather less convinced, with reviewers and bloggers condemning the film as one big homophobic slur – or at least, lots of little ones.  Some folks are particularly offended by the representation of gay marriage.  In order to gain the employment benefits, all that Larry needs to do is get married.  And apparently, a same sex marriage will be fine.  So, two straight men use same sex marriage as the “easy” way to get benefits.  The criticism: gaining legal benefits of any sort for same sex couples continues to be a monumental struggle in the U.S., and suggesting that it’s the easy route to benefits is offensive. 

While the bloggers don’t tend to go into the legal details, there is the added legal challenge of migrating marriages.  Many U.S.same sex couples come to Canada to get married, and then try to travel home with their marriages.  So far, it hasn't realy worked. Neither the US federal government nor the vast majority of states recognize Canadian same sex marriages. (For a further discussion of these migrating marriages, see my article in The Migration of Constitutional Ideas, edited by Sujit Choudhry).  So, it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that this would be an easy way to get benefits.

A whole other angle of controversy comes out of the  the right wing.  Ted Baehr, for example, has declared the film “one of the most anti-Christian films of the year” and “nothing more than anti-Christian, pro-homosexual propaganda that attacks the traditional, Judeo-Christian moral values of American culture.”

Then there is the earnest, never-miss-an-opportunity-for education response. The American Civil Liberties Union urging viewers to visit 10Couples.org to find out what it is really like being in a same sex relationship and being denied legal protection.  “We hope that people realize that, while the film is funny, the idea of protections for same-sex relationships isn’t a joke," Matt Coles, director of the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project.

What do I make of the film? Well, aside from the fact that I find it almost unwatchable, it seems that it is nonetheless a sign of the times – at least, of the times in the U.S, when gay marriage remains elusive in all but one state (Massachusetts allows same sex marraiges,  while four other states allow civil unions) and where Congress has actually debated whether or not to amend the Constitution to ban it. (They didn't, but many states have their state constitutions to do so).

The film is a kind of culture artifact of the status of gay in contemporary America. The culture wars continue to rage around all things gay. 

The film is intended to weight in, and address the mall rat crowd, in their own homophobic language.  It tells us a lot about how far we haven’t yet come that this language is still seen as a useful delivery mechanism for an anti-gay message.  And without trying to resolve the ‘more good than bad’ debate, it is at least possible that some of the mall rat crowd may swallow the tolerance message at the end of the film. After all, its their hero, Adam Sandler saying it.

One thing for sure: gay folks are not the intended audience.  Neither are folks who are already their supporters.  But, we all might want to pay attention to the controversy surrounding the film, to take the temperature of the culture around us.  And, in case you hadn’t noticed, it’s still a bit chilly outside.