The Star Wars universe has received its second gay canon character: Sinjir Rath Velus. Chuck Wendig, the author of the Star Wars: Aftermath trilogy, has responded to critics of this move.
“You’re not the Rebel Alliance. You’re not the good guys. You’re the f*****g Empire, man. You’re the s****y, oppressive, totalitarian Empire. If you can imagine a world where Luke Skywalker would be irritated that there were gay people around him, you completely missed the point of Star Wars. It’s like trying to picture Jesus kicking lepers in the throat instead of curing them. Stop being the Empire. Join the Rebel Alliance. We have love and inclusion and great music and cute droids.”
First, I really do like Chuck’s style of story-telling. I have read the first installment of his series and am currently on the second one, but I find his commentary very troubling. The Galactic Empire didn’t target gays. Being opposed to promoting the gay lifestyle is not like being the Empire, nor is it like Jesus kicking the leper in the throat. Using the curing of a leper to promote sin is a non-sequitur; in fact, it only means we should help people in healing from their sins.
I would be bothered by the idea of Sinjir being gay if his sexual preference was bigger than it is; Chuck himself admitted he intended not to make it a major part of who he was. I was a bit shocked when I first saw clear references in the second installment that point to Sinjir’s homosexuality. It is also important to note that even Chuck’s novel (the second one) admits the Empire did not care what one’s sexual preferences were as long as they were not done in public. So, apparently the Empire isn’t exactly the ‘conservative’ theocracy some might claim.
Anyways, the comment is very agenda-driven. Chuck begs the question that Luke Skywalker would have no issue with homosexuality. First off, sexuality is a very untouched part of the Star Wars universe; so there is no direct references to what Luke thinks. Second, Luke is part of a monastic society of celibate members alike that of the Catholic Church, which opposes homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered” (CCC 2357). Who’s to say Luke wouldn’t oppose the homosexual lifestyle? Third, the author assumes that because Luke is part of a religious group that teaches love as opposed to hatred, then that must mean Luke is ‘tolerant’ of homosexuality. This is typical of the liberal social justice crowd, to assume somebody who embraces homosexuality is loving and somebody who opposes homosexuality is hateful.
To add insult to injury, he said this.
“And it’s a fabulously gay Nyan Cat meteor with a rainbow trailing behind it and your mode of thought will be extinct.”
Such a “mode of thought” is not going extinct. It’s really a matter of who runs the culture. Christians were at odds with the culture 2,000 years ago which was very open about sexuality: e.g. ritual prostitution, orgies, homosexuality, pederasty, etc. Just because Christians seem to be in the margins today does not at all indicate a near extinction of opposition to sexual liberation.
It’s clear though: Chuck is a great story-teller, but not a good historian or theologian.