"All My Children" Lesbian Wedding...Too Controversal?

[only1moore]

This month (February 2009), ABC's "All My Children" aired a lesbian wedding on daytime TV between Bianca and Reese. However, as expected, this has already sparked a lot of objections from conservative christian groups like "Focus on The Family," which plans to boycott the show.

Personally I feel that in this day and age boycotting a daytime serial is not the way to go and I don't see a lot of ABC affiliates dropping the show. If these groups are so concerned about storylines that deal with LGBT issues on daytime or nighttime TV they can change the channel or go elsewhere. Thats my opinion.

 

[Nate Wesley]

'Focus on the Family' and groups like them can go kick rocks. Instead of recognizing that there is programming that is not geared or aimed toward their narrow-minded supporters, they'd rather 'boycott' shows in hopes that no one gets to watch them.

 

[dhett]

That's because they can't get their allies in Congress to invoke a "Fairness Doctrine" to shut down content they don't like.

 

[LKellerIII]

I hope we're all past being shocked by a Lesbian wedding.

James Dobson and Focus on the Family have clearly been classified by mainstream America as a far-right lunatic fringe organization...even before the end of the Bush era.

Groups like this will have increasingly less significance or influence in the coming years...at least until the political pendulum swings back the other way.

 

[easttxtv]

It shouldn't have come as too big a surprise to have this kind of storyline on AMC as it's been a while since 'Bianca' came out. As the World Turns hasn't yet gone the same-sex-wedding route, even though there is currently a gay couple ('Luke' and 'Noah') on the show. ATWT had a gay character in the mid-late 1980s ('Hank') and One Life to Live had one several years ago as well.

Soaps have always introduced groundbreaking or controversial storylines. Search for Tomorrow's lead female character faced being a single mother early in the show's run (the 1950s), a character on Another World had an abortion (the first abortion storyline on a soap) in the mid-1960s (years before it was legalized), (The) Guiding Light showed a major character with uterine cancer in the early 1960s (rarely discussed then, much less dramatized on TV), etc.; there are many other examples.

FOTF and any other boycotting group tend to forget one major thing...AMC is a FICTIONAL, WRITTEN show. It may echo or shadow real life at times, but come on. There are umpteen other TV channels to choose from if they're that worked up, or, that on-off switch might still be on their TVs somewhere 8)

 

[mleach]

James Dobson and Focus on the Family have clearly been classified by mainstream America as a far-right lunatic fringe organization...even before the end of the Bush era.

Groups like this will have increasingly less significance or influence in the coming years...at least until the political pendulum swings back the other way.

Even if the pendulum does make that swing back...I doubt groups like Focus On The Family would have much in the way of influence because as you have pointed out, the group is a "far-right lunatic fringe organization". In short..they really are NUTS !!!!! Over the years I have read some of those "letters to the editor" that had appeared in the Denver area newspapers ( and elsewhere across the country ) from FOTF's members and supporters. One thing for someone to be against the idea of gay marriage but to "suggest" banning two people of the same sex from even living together or to "make it a law" that everyone over 25 must be married regardless if they want to or not, or even the "idea" that states should have a vote as to whether or not they should ban gay people...well that just isn't normal.

Hardly a surprise they are having a boycott against All My Children over a lesbian storyline since it seems like every other month FOTF finds something to boycott even though few if any of them amounted to anything like their "boycott" against the CVS Pharmacy chain when one of their employees was fired for refusing to fill a prescription from a guy who was HIV positive or that boycott some of their supporters tried to do a few years back against the city of Indianapolis over that city refusing to shut down those "gay sex clubs". Well considering that Indy will host the Superbowl in a few years, so much for that "boycott".

I think this boycott between FOTF and All My Children ( and the others over the years ) is just an attempt to get themselves in the news and be talked about, nothing more.

 

[Nate Wesley]

That's because they can't get their allies in Congress to invoke a "Fairness Doctrine" to shut down content they don't like.

Must you find some left-wing conspiracy in everything? We aren't talking about anything related to anyone's political agenda, we're talking about a lesbian wedding on a fictional TV show.

 

[dhett]

That's because they can't get their allies in Congress to invoke a "Fairness Doctrine" to shut down content they don't like.

Must you find some left-wing conspiracy in everything? We aren't talking about anything related to anyone's political agenda, we're talking about a lesbian wedding on a fictional TV show.

That, my friend, *is* a political agenda. Funny how you didn't protest the description of Focus on the Family as "conservative" or the other poster who used the term, "right-wing". I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored. Make no mistake - what you see on TV reflects someone's political agenda. Someone is always trying to push their views on you. You only object when you don't agree with the view being pushed.

 

[quadraphonic]

That's because they can't get their allies in Congress to invoke a "Fairness Doctrine" to shut down content they don't like.

I haven't seen any religious broadcasting group in favor of the Fairness Doctrine at any level, much less lobbying "their allies in Congress" for it.
Don't create boogeymen where they ain't at man.

 

[LKellerIII]

That's because they can't get their allies in Congress to invoke a "Fairness Doctrine" to shut down content they don't like.

I haven't seen any religious broadcasting group in favor of the Fairness Doctrine at any level, much less lobbying "their allies in Congress" for it.
Don't create boogeymen where they ain't at man.

The Fairness Doctrine is irrelevant in this case. Before being thrown out some years ago, it was used primarily by politicians to get equal time on a network or station when a political opponent had previously gotten air-time on the same network or station. And I believe it excluded actual news coverage. So if Congressman Smith was interviewed as part of a legitimate news story, his opponent Mr. Jones couldn't demand equal time. But if Congressman Smith was interviewed on TV or radio in regard to his political views during an election year campaign, Mr. Jones could demand equal time if he was a legitimate opponent on the ballot.

But it was never invoked to protest regular programming, as in a religious group demanding time to talk about the evils of homosexuality following the broadcast of a pretend lesbian wedding. I'm not aware of anything like that ever happening.

I'm not aware of any political or religious group ever trying to get that kind of "fairness" legislated. It would cripple the media...they wouldn't be able to produce any content - fictional or non-fiction (news) that wouldn't cause some group with an agenda to ask for equal time. All media corporations would lobby against it, and it would get laughed out of Congress.

 

[dhett]

That's because they can't get their allies in Congress to invoke a "Fairness Doctrine" to shut down content they don't like.

I haven't seen any religious broadcasting group in favor of the Fairness Doctrine at any level, much less lobbying "their allies in Congress" for it.
Don't create boogeymen where they ain't at man.

You missed the point. When a religious or otherwise conservative group wants to protest content they don't like, they boycott. When a liberal group wants to protest content they don't like, they contact their allies in Congress, who immediately start calling for a return to the "Fairness Doctrine".

 

[dhett]

That's because they can't get their allies in Congress to invoke a "Fairness Doctrine" to shut down content they don't like.

I haven't seen any religious broadcasting group in favor of the Fairness Doctrine at any level, much less lobbying "their allies in Congress" for it.
Don't create boogeymen where they ain't at man.

The Fairness Doctrine is irrelevant in this case.

It is relevant, but I don't believe I made my point clearly enough. The "Fairness Doctrine" I refer to is not its previous incarnation, but the one that liberal members of Congress have been calling for for the past eight years. While the intent of the old doctrine was to expand viewpoints in a scarcity of media, the intent of the new "doctrine" is to put a stop to conservative talk radio, even though the scarcity of media no longer exists.

In other words, in this case, a conservative group is boycotting a program's sponsors because they don't like its content and want it stopped by causing the advertisers to see that it is not palatable to the public's taste. Liberals don't like the content of conservative talk radio, so they try to stop it by invoking a new "Fairness Doctrine" that will force stations to air their point of view, regardless of the fact that the public enjoys and supports conservative talk radio over other formats, as evidenced by the ratings.

Each group uses its own methods to accomplish its means. If you wish to demonize one group for doing so, then you should demonize all groups of all stripes whose aim is the same.

 

[ironbear]

That, my friend, *is* a political agenda. Funny how you didn't protest the description of Focus on the Family as "conservative" or the other poster who used the term, "right-wing". I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored. Make no mistake - what you see on TV reflects someone's political agenda. Someone is always trying to push their views on you. You only object when you don't agree with the view being pushed.

You're talking about RNC-Fox News, right?

With all due respect: we love, we exist. Whereas God's existence is a matter of some controversy.

 

[dhett]

That, my friend, *is* a political agenda. Funny how you didn't protest the description of Focus on the Family as "conservative" or the other poster who used the term, "right-wing". I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored. Make no mistake - what you see on TV reflects someone's political agenda. Someone is always trying to push their views on you. You only object when you don't agree with the view being pushed.

You're talking about RNC-Fox News, right?

Right. And DNC-ABC, DNC-CBS, DNC-NBC, DNC-MSNBC, DNC-CNBC, etc. All sides participate.

With all due respect: we love, we exist. Whereas God's existence is a matter of some controversy.

Not to me.

 

[Nate Wesley]

That, my friend, *is* a political agenda.

No, it's a storyline intent on drawing eyeballs. They're not doing it for anything else than 'advocating' that you tune in to see what happens next.

Funny how you didn't protest the description of Focus on the Family as "conservative" or the other poster who used the term, "right-wing". I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.

Well it'd be a little laughable to confuse them for liberals, wouldn't it? We sort of know what side of the fence they're on both socially and politically.

Make no mistake - what you see on TV reflects someone's political agenda. Someone is always trying to push their views on you. You only object when you don't agree with the view being pushed.

Maybe at some level, but I don't start boycotting shows for every plot twist I don't like. Most people don't, probably because they're pretty good at separating fiction from reality. You must not enjoy much in the way of entertainment if you're always expecting an angle behind what everyone says or does in film, on the screen, or on a piece of musical plastic.

 

[BRNout]

Don't forget DNCNN.

The bias to the left on TV news has become so pervasive that we take it for granted that a conservative idea or proponent is labeled as "controversial" while a liberal one is just an idea or proponent or an activist. Liberal ideas are stated as being at face value (no label) while politically or socially conservative ideas are "right wing" - all this on local and standard network TV.

That Fox News is one of the few outlets NOT to do this and to play even has resulted in their being labeled as "right wing" too - even when it's really not so. It's just conditioning. Every other outlet is so far to the left that anything to the center seems far to the right. To use an analogy, if you're originally from Puerto Rico, even Atlanta has a cold climate to you. Yet it's a sunbelt city to a New Yorker or a Chicagoan. It's all perspective. In the case of TV news and entertainment shows, we have all become so accustomed to politically and socially liberal ideas, comments and leanings that anything different seems out of line.

The concept of the new "Fairness Doctrine" as is being proposed by members of congress is clearly being applied in a very selective way in order to quiet voices of dissent. It's aimed at one select piece of the spectrum while totally ignoring the rest. That's why this is a free speech issue and should be unconstitutional. Because it would not be applied equally. Not that the original version ever was.

 

[dhett]

That, my friend, *is* a political agenda.

No, it's a storyline intent on drawing eyeballs. They're not doing it for anything else than 'advocating' that you tune in to see what happens next.

I think you really believe that. I don't; not for one second.

Funny how you didn't protest the description of Focus on the Family as "conservative" or the other poster who used the term, "right-wing". I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.

Well it'd be a little laughable to confuse them for liberals, wouldn't it? We sort of know what side of the fence they're on both socially and politically.

Obviously. But you protested my bringing a political description into the discussion, when all the while, you were more than happy to pursue it and to let others do so.

Make no mistake - what you see on TV reflects someone's political agenda. Someone is always trying to push their views on you. You only object when you don't agree with the view being pushed.

Maybe at some level, but I don't start boycotting shows for every plot twist I don't like. Most people don't, probably because they're pretty good at separating fiction from reality. You must not enjoy much in the way of entertainment if you're always expecting an angle behind what everyone says or does in film, on the screen, or on a piece of musical plastic.

That's quite a leap of logic. Yes, I expect a political angle here. You yourself just said it was a ploy to grab eyeballs. Why? Because they know the topic is a political hot potato. So you've already admitted that it was a premeditated move. And you want to fault Focus on the Family for calling them on it?

Like you, I don't start boycotting shows for every plot twist I don't like. In fact, I don't boycott at all. But if Focus on the Family wants to, fine. They have every right. But it has nothing to do with separating fiction from reality. "All My Children" is using fiction to promote a real agenda. That's a device as old as literature itself.

It would never happen, but if the show were to portray the marriage in a negative light, there would be a great hue and cry from homosexual advocates. And no one would accuse them of failing to separate fiction from reality.

 

[dhett]

A quote from actress Tamara Brown, who plays Reese Williams, one of the two getting "married", in an interview with ET Online:

"I was so honored when they called and asked me to be a part of this and do the first lesbian wedding in day time," Braun tells ET. "It means so much to me that we tell this story, and we tell an honest story with heart and integrity about two people who are in love and struggle with the same things that heterosexual couples struggle with."

Source: http://www.etonline.com/news/2009/02/70765/index.html

But there was no agenda.

From GLAAD president Neil Guliano, in an interview with gaywired.com:

"It's reality," said Neil Giuliano, president of GLAAD. "So when we see a lesbian couple getting married on daytime drama, it simply reflects what's happening in the real world."

Source: http://www.gaywired.com/Article.cfm?ID=21554

I guess Focus on the Family isn't the only group having a problem keeping fiction and reality separated.

 

[quadraphonic]

That's because they can't get their allies in Congress to invoke a "Fairness Doctrine" to shut down content they don't like.

I haven't seen any religious broadcasting group in favor of the Fairness Doctrine at any level, much less lobbying "their allies in Congress" for it.
Don't create boogeymen where they ain't at man.

You missed the point. When a religious or otherwise conservative group wants to protest content they don't like, they boycott. When a liberal group wants to protest content they don't like, they contact their allies in Congress, who immediately start calling for a return to the "Fairness Doctrine".

You got to admit that was hard to read into the point when one post said "FOTF can go kick rocks....." and your followup post you said "they can't get their allies in Congress." The subject went from "FOTF" to "they" but apparently it changed to "liberal groups" somehow?

 

[dhett]

You got to admit that was hard to read into the point when one post said "FOTF can go kick rocks....." and your followup post you said "they can't get their allies in Congress." The subject went from "FOTF" to "they" but apparently it changed to "liberal groups" somehow?

Yeah, the thought was that FOTF couldn't get their allies in Congress to act on their behalf, with the rest implied, like liberal groups can. Didn't mean to mislead ya.