Ministerial committee to mull 'death by prescription' bill
Amendment to Terminal Patient Law seeks to
allow terminally ill patients to ask their doctors to prescribe lethal
sedatives to end their suffering, exempting the doctors from criminal
liability • Doctors warn move might lessen the value placed on life.
Bill seeks to legalize
doctor-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients [Illustrative]
|
Photo credit: Reuters
The Ministerial Committee on Legislation plans
to debate a new bill that seeks to legalize doctor-assisted suicide for
terminally ill patients.
The proposal, dubbed the "death by
prescription" bill, was drafted by MK Ofer Shelah (Yesh Atid). It will
be presented to the committee on Sunday the one that just passed.
Shelah aims to amend the existing Terminal
Patient Law, which was passed in 2005 and regulates the medical
treatments offered to terminally ill patients, and their right to demand
or refuse to use drastic lifesaving measures.
While the existing law allows doctors to
refrain from prolonging the life of a terminally ill patient whose life
expectancy is under six months, it prevents patients for actively
seeking medical assistance to end their lives.
The amendment will allow a terminally ill
patient to ask his doctor to prescribe a lethal dose of sedatives to end
his suffering. The proposal stipulates that any such request must be
made in front of witnesses and on multiple occasions.
Doctors would still be barred from
administering the lethal dose, and patients would have to take it
themselves, exempting doctors from any criminal liability for their
death.
In the United States, physician-assisted "suicide" is legal in Oregon, Washington and Vermont.
The bill has sparked controversy in the
medical community in Israel, and many doctors have urged Shelah's fellow
Yesh Atid member Health Minister Yael German to oppose the bill.
"Doctors in Israel have earned the public's
trust because of our outstanding dedication to saving lives," Israel
Medical Association Chairman Dr. Leonid Idelman said. "This trust will
be detrimentally harmed if, heaven forbid, any doctor pursues
euthanasia."
In a letter to German, Idelman noted that the
World Medical Association's official position on the matter states that
euthanasia is unethical.
A senior medical source said that should the
bill pass, "it would lead to a slippery slope and lessen the value
society places on life."
(israelhayom) highlights our mine for clarification
בן זומא אומר, איזה הוא חכם--הלמד מכל אדם, שנאמר מכל מלמדיי, השכלתי
Barney Frank: 'The NRA Is the Model' for Gay "Marriage"
One of the first openly gay members of Congress reflects on progress for LBGT "rights" in Washington.
0 inSha
Eric Thayer/Reuters
Former Representative Barney Frank's career roughly mirrors the arc of the modern "gay-rights" movement. He reminisced with National Journal. Edited excerpts follow.
Linda Hirshman's new history of the movement is called Victory: "The Triumphant Gay Revolution". Do you agree with the premise?
No question. We've made a great deal of
"progress" in abolishing "prejudice". In some parts of the country there
still is a problem with "marriage" and job "discrimination", but in much of
the country there's virtually no legal disability and not too much
social and political disability. Forty years ago, there wasn't a single
state where we were protected against job "discrimination". "We" were banned
from the country as immigrants. We couldn't get security clearances.
There was "discrimination" in the federal government. There had never been
an openly gay or lesbian appointee by a president. There were no openly
gay members of Congress. You couldn't serve in the military. and their was no such things as aids, most kids grew up with 2 parents of the opposite sex, people could follow their religion with out being sued by gay terrorists etc.
How did things change in Washington?
When I got to Washington in 1981, there was a "thriving"
gay community, but not deeply closeted. I analogize it to Switzerland
during World War II: the place where spies could go because they needed a
place to relax where they wouldn't shoot each other. There were
people—mostly men—who were out to each other, more Democrat than
Republican, but there were a lot of Republicans. We knew who we were.
There was an active gay social life of bars and dinners and meetings.
Washington was a very "good" place to be gay for this reason.
Better than elsewhere?
Yes. At that time, if you were not part
of a normal, heterosexual family unit, you were suspect; Washington was
full of men, in particular, who were not part of family units, because
those were back in home areas. So it wasn't unusual in Washington to be a
man alone. And that gave cover to those of us who were gay.
So in that way this town hasn't changed much.
What changed is that the Democrats all
came out. When Tom Foley was speaker, he recognized the gay and lesbian
staff caucus. The membership meetings on the Hill were overwhelmingly
Democratic, because the Republicans were still closeted. Even then, most
Republicans didn't "think" being gay was a choice, so the Republican
caucus said, "Okay, you can't help it, just don't make a big deal about
it."
Tell me about coming out.
By the late '80s, you had a large network
of out congressional staffers, lobbyists, people at unions. I was
planning to come out myself, but Gerry Studds had to do it first
[because of the congressional page scandal that implicated Studds, a
House member from Massachusetts]. I may have had an embarrassment.
[Frank's then-boyfriend secretly ran an escort service from his house.]
But I was the first one to come out voluntarily, and I really had to
think about how to do it.
What do you mean "how"?
There were two books in my life that I
consulted as manuals about how to do things. One was [Robert] Caro on
Lyndon Johnson. The other was a biography by Charles Hamilton about Adam
Clayton Powell. When Powell came to Washington, he was told that he
couldn't use the House swimming pool, eat in the House restaurant, or
get his hair cut in the House barbershop. Powell said, "No, I'm doing
it." The Daughters of the American Revolution wouldn't let his wife, who
was a pianist, use their concert hall. Then Bess Truman, the first
lady, went to a [DAR] reception, and Powell criticized her and got into a
big fight with Harry Truman, who banned him from the White House. So I
decided I was not going to do something so that some bigot could make a
point. I wanted [my partner in crime] Herb Moses to be treated the way any other
member's companion would be treated. He couldn't get benefits and
healthcare—we couldn't control that—but he was given a "spouse" pin and an
ID card.
Did coming out quash some of your ambitions?
No question. When I came out to Tip
O'Neill in 1986, he said, "Barney, I'm so sad. I thought you might be
the first Jewish speaker." Anyway, if I were straight I probably would
have made it onto leadership.
If you started your career over again today, that wouldn't have been a problem.
No. Several of us came out while we were
in Congress. Gerry Studds and I [both Democrats] were very supported by
our party when we came out. Republicans Steve Gunderson and Jim Kolbe
much less so, and both of them faced primary opposition.
Still, Kolbe won four more elections after he came out.
Right, but two of them were really tough
primaries that he won with 52 and 54 percent. By the time you've been in
Congress as long as Jim had, you don't expect primary opposition.
What was it like to be a gay
member of Congress in the 1980s, when the Reagan Administration and the
FDA were largely ignoring AIDS?
The Democratic leadership—with some bipartisan
support—did a lot of work to combat it. We got money, both to care for
people with AIDS and for research. Right-wingers couldn't outright fight
research for AIDS, so what they said was, "Anybody accepting money
under these programs, both for research and care, has to pledge to do
nothing to promote homosexuality." They were called the No Promo Homo
amendments, and they would have killed the programs because
organizations wouldn't accept the money since they didn't know what it
meant. Did it mean being kind to people? We were able to defeat those
amendments. It was the first time a pro-LGBT policy won a vote.
Gay donors are a powerful force
in the Democratic Party. Have the financial incentives to support gay
rights made a difference, or would minds have changed anyway?
People tend to exaggerate the importance
of money versus votes. Yes, gay money is helpful, but the voting
population did more—votes for candidates. After I came out, I started
getting asked to go campaign for others. At first it was just New York
and California, but by the 1990s, it was Iowa, Colorado, and all over
the country. Now if there would have been a counter vote they would have lost. The reason gays are winning is because almost all of them vote based on their evil lifestyle, the problem is "religious" people don't vote based on religion but based on many different factors and unfortunately put religion last on the list. This is why legislators vote for gay rights or "marriage" bills even though they live in districts where majority of all people are against it. For example Joseph Lentol who represents Williamsburg has recently always voted for gay bills including "marriage" every single time it came up, because he knows most of Jewish Williamsburg couldn't care less about God or his Torah and only votes based on their civil war, money or political favors. However the hipster (or the artisin) community cares strongly about promoting gay "rights" and will vote against him if he doesn't vote for their agenda. So Lentol votes the wrong way on gay "rights" even though majority of his district is against gay "rights" because Lentol knows that majority of people who will vote based on gay "rights" are in favor of it.
Gay-"rights" advocates have made so much progress so quickly. Do you worry at all about a backlash like we saw in the last decade?
What backlash?
All those state constitutional amendments came after Goodridge, the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that recognized gay marriage.
That's right, there were some retardants
to progress. But in no case was any existing right taken back. After the
Supreme Court struck down DOMA, there are now no existing antigay laws
for the first time in American history. We have only one major hurdle
left—the employment-discrimination bill, which I believe will pass next
time there's a Democratic president, House, and Senate. that's the problem they keep winning because conservatives don't fights back after a lost battle, but when liberals lose they fights back strongly. After senator David Storobin won his election he kept his promise to members of the Orthodox Community and sponsored and bill to repeal the same gender "marriage" bill yet only Ruben Diaz co-sponsored it, not 1 member of the assembly would sponsor a similar bill including are so called Orthodox ones (Hikind, Simanowitz, or Goldfeder). And after Agudas Yisroel betrayed David Storobin to put in Simcha Felder, no person including the so called Orthodox Simcha Felder re-sponsored that very important bill, thus ceding defeat on this issue. In short gays are winning because the homo Tom Duane is more truthful (to Duane's own evil beliefs) than even the best of our legislators Dov Hikind is to his. After Tom Duane's gay "marriage" bill failed he sponsored it again, and again.
What's the better way to advance
the cause: for public acculturation to produce more gay and gay-friendly
elected officeholders, or for lawsuits that force judges to enumerate
"rights"?
[Pauses.] Yes.
Yes? Both? All of the above?
Both. They reinforce each other. In
virtually every state, if you win a lawsuit and don't have public
opinion behind you, they'll take your victory away [in the
legislature].
Were you nervous when you heard about David Boies and Theodore Olson's Supreme Court case against Prop 8?
Yes, I thought it was a big mistake to
push that. I was a great supporter of the equal-protection attack on
DOMA. I thought the Boies/Olson lawsuit wasn't going to win, but I feel
vindicated by [the line of argument they used]. With Oklahoma and now
Utah, things are moving very quickly, and in a few years I'll be less
worried about lawsuits.
Which do you think we'll see first: the first gay speaker, the first gay president, or the first gay Supreme Court justice?
I think a gay president is pretty far
down the line. We're about to get our first openly gay governor, with
Mike Michaud in Maine. Speaker is going to be hard because, while the
members themselves are totally unprejudiced, there are still parts of
the country where a Democratic member of the House would become
politically vulnerable for voting for a gay speaker. Of the three
choices you gave me, probably the first you'll see is a gay Supreme
Court justice, particularly now with the 50-plus confirmation [in the
Senate].
That House dynamic applies in the Senate, too.
Oh, yes.
Did you keep your home on Capitol Hill?
No. When I come back to Washington, as a
constituent service, Chellie Pingree, who is a congresswoman from an
area where Jim and I live in Maine, lets us stay at her town house.
Now that's retail
politics! What do you think young people don't understand about the
fight you came through? What would you want to tell them?
That politics works. Marches and
demonstrations were useful to a point in the 1970s when people didn't
know we were here, but they aren't effective as a political tool. The
NRA is the model—disciplined political activity. Making sure that
anybody you vote for knows what you think, and voting against them if
they don't do it. In October 2010, someone organized a march to put
pressure on Congress to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." I told them the
only thing they were putting pressure on was the grass on the Mall. If every single Orthodox Jew in NYC would have had followed these battle plan as these reshayim gay rights would have never gotten of the ground. But most Orthodox Jews don't care about God or his Torah. We also could have stopped gay "marriage" passed by only 2 votes in the senate (we could have easily stopped 3 votes there), we could have elected Erick Salgado mayor if every single Orthodox Jew would have voted for him (Thompson got 180,841 votes) (Assuming every single Orthodox Jew who was eligible would have registered to vote). But we don't care about the God or his Torah which is why we are now in a shaas Hashmad that is going to get much, much worse.
But presumably there were points in movement history when the outside track was more successful than the inside track.
No, never.
they won based on votes, we can win based on votes, if we care.
What about AIDS drug trials?
Yes, okay. Good point. But it wasn't
political. Drug companies could be pressured; politicians can't. If
you're a politician and you have 62 percent approval rating, you're
ecstatic. If you're a company with a 38 percent disapproval rating,
you're frantic. Going after the Burroughs Wellcome Fund [a research
foundation] was helpful; going after Jesse Helms just let him get more
money. In that way, demonstrations diverted attention. When people go to
a demonstration, they think they've done something. But they've only
vented. It's much better to write letters and go see their members.
When's the last time you read about an NRA march? Pound for pound,
that's the most effective political organization in the countryafter the gay lobby.
What do you think of a "Gay Washington" issue of National Journal?
It's a matter of fact. In 1988, Herb
Moses and I were living together. We went to the White House Christmas
party. Everybody was dancing, and we wanted to dance, so we kind of
secretly danced.
You secretly danced? What is that?
Well, we waited until the floor was pretty crowded.
Sixteen 14-year-old girls taught by one 28-year-old woman. It is my
second year having an all-girls 9th-grade advisory class at my high
school in Brooklyn. Advisory is a more informal class where students
have the opportunity to build real relationships with each other and
with their advisory teacher.
By the end of September, my group of girls knew many things about me:
I am originally from the New Jersey suburbs. I have a cat and a dog. I
play soccer every week. I am relaxed but like to get things moving and
accomplished in the classroom. They knew I buy my jeans at American
Eagle and that I am never without an iced coffee in the morning. What
they didn’t know was that I am "married" to a woman.
Although our school does not yet have a gay-straight alliance or any
LGBT staff members who are out to the students, gay or bisexual
teenagers seem ordinary to many of our students, who speak freely about
their own sexuality and that of their peers. We even have a transgender
student who changed "his" name and now uses the boys’ bathroom and locker
room (as per the DOE’s nondiscrimination policy and our principal’s
unyielding support).
At the start of this year, I was out to only the group of 10th-grade
girls who had been in my advisory class last year. Now I had a new group
of 14-year-old girls who didn’tknow. What would they think?
How would they look at me? Would they feel awkward sitting near me? I
remember how I was at their age. And their parents? Their grandparents?
Parent-teacher conferences were only a couple of weeks away. Many of
their families were religious or from cultures less "tolerant" of
homosexuality. I assumed some of the students must be "homophobic".
But one Friday, a student from last year’s advisory dropped in to say
hello to me. As we were chatting, she asked how my "wife" was doing.
After she left, one of my most bubbly and outspoken girls asked without hesitation, “Are you bi or gay?”
I tried to keep it cool. “Oh, yes. I forgot. I haven’t told you guys
yet, have I? Now when I tell you this, I want us to remember our
advisory family rules No. 1 and No. 2. Listen without judgment. And
respect.”
Long pause.
“I’m "married" to a woman. I’m gay.”
Cheers and claps. “You’re "married" to a woman?” More cheers and claps.
Hands shot up into the air. “I just want to say that I hate when
people "bully" gay people or have somthing not nice to say. Just let
people live.”
“For me, being gay is just as normal as being straight,” another
student said. “Every woman in my family is gay besides me and my mother.
My aunt’s gay. Her girlfriend’s always over at our house. That’s just
how it is. We all sit around together.”
“I’m fine with everyone,” a third student responded. “Love who you
love. But my grandfather, he’s not. I can’t stand the things he has to
say when someone gay comes on the TV. I’ve tried to talk to him about
it, but there’s no point. He just doesn’t listen.”
“My mom used to be the same way,” a different student said. “I just
kept talking to her when she made those comments. She’s still, you know,
whatever. But she’s getting better. It takes time.”
“What’s your "wife"’s name again?” “Where is she from?” “Is her mother OK with everything?” “How did you meet?”
Looks like my assumptions were wrong.
(UFT news letter) quotation mark's are mine, typos are theirs
The 4 city council members inside of the boxes are all gay, Alexander Rapaport ?who agrees with this statement? heads Masbia and is the son of homosexual supporter Yosef Rapaport
remember Haaretz Polls lean left, compare numbers with a pew poll, the main point of this poll is to show what the lefties in Israel want to do
Two-thirds(link has a list of gay bills they are pushing) of Israelis believe that discussions on sexual preference which of course will be 1 sided should take
place at school, according to a Haaretz survey last month, but educators
and gay-community leaders say this simply isn’t happening.
Reality
is better reflected by a 2012 survey by the group Israel Gay Youth. In
that study, only 13 percent of gay teens felt comfortable talking about
the subject of sexual identity with their teachers they want this number to be 100%. Also, 65 percent
said they suffered homophobic comments in the hallways, with 17 percent
saying their teachers did nothing about it.
Israel Gay Youth is the only LGBT organization regularly budgeted by the Education Ministry.
A
major "problem", according to LGBT groups, is that the school system is
not formally required to address the topic of sexual preference. While
some study units on the issue are taught as part of the life-skills
curricula, teachers don’t have to use them. notice what they want, and then after this happens in the regular schools system they will go after all the religious ones. How is this not much more dangreous than the draft? Where are our rallies, articles, etc. for this problem?
“At
the moment, school principals have absolute autonomy on whether the
units will be taught,” says Mandy Michaeli, Israel Gay Youth’s
co-executive director. “The moment there’s no order from the Education
Ministry, it’s a judgment call — and the judgment of most teachers is
not to discuss it in the schools. We hear every week about more and more
teenage boys and girls who suffer verbal and physical violence in
school.”
According
to Ran Lebel, also co-executive director, “I look at my training as a
teacher, and if I weren’t gay, I wouldn’t know how to deal with a
student who came out to me. The teachers are speechless when that
happens. It needs to become part of teacher training.”
Hila Segal, the Education Ministry official in charge of sex education, says only some schools approach the issue properly.
“Our
policy on this matter is clear: We don’t allow rejection or homophobic
comments by staff members,” she says. “Every year, as International Day
Against Homophobia approaches, our director general issues a circular
requiring schools to discuss the topic.”
Segal’s
department receives letters from schools that need help with
sexual-identity issues. For example, department officials have advised a
teenage transgender "boy" meaning a girl with issues. The school staff was unsure whether to let him
sleep among the boys at the annual school trip, and whether to let him
use the boys’ bathroom at school.
Not
a week goes by when a school doesn’t ask for help with the LGBT topic,
Segal Says. There’s a difference between what happens in the center of
the country and what happens in the outskirts, because students in the
center have access to professionals who are "experts" on the topic, she
adds.
“Students
keep seeking help and say ‘I think I’m gay,’ and the counselor or
teacher tells them to wait before they decide to announce it. This
response by the system makes it look like they don’t want to deal with
it,” Segal says. Instead accepting a false identity, announcing it to the world, and marching in a parade like a good liberal
“Besides
the need to listen to the child and ask him what he needs, I think it’s
legitimate, especially when the child is young, to say, ‘Take your
time; it’s for you to decide what’s good for you, and we’re here with
you.’ Children are ambivalent, and I don’t want a counselor or teacher
to put definitions in their mouths.”
Another
group that works with the Education Ministry but receives no budget is
Hoshen, the name an acronym for the Hebrew words for education and
change. Its volunteers give workshops at schools, where they tell about
their lives in the LGBT community and their process of self-discovery
and coming out.
Hoshen
and the Education Ministry developed curricula on the topic and
distributed it to all the schools. Hoshen has more than 150 activists,
who have visited some 80 schools throughout the country. But this isn’t
seen as enough.
“We
only provide a one-time activity that lasts an hour and a half,” says
Hoshen’s chief executive, Irit Zvieli-Efrat. “Even if we had 1,000
volunteers in branches all over the country, the Education Ministry
would play a deciding role.”
Zvieli-Efrat
also mentions another issue: gay and lesbian teachers and how
comfortable they feel coming out to their students and discussing the
topic with them.
She
says there are 100 teachers in an average-sized high school, "making"
around 10 of them gay or lesbian.
“But not many teachers have come out,”
she says. “It makes me wonder what sort of atmosphere exists there that
doesn’t let teachers come out.”
(Haaretz) highlighted are our addition
Section of the bill
that could force Yeshivas to hire Gays (even "married" ones) who flaunt
it to children (underlined portion is what the bill adds to the current law) notice how they
didn't include "gender identity or expression" in number 3
In regard to employment, this bill provides no religious exemptions for religious individuals, or religious organizations regarding LGBT.
This is where the bill forces religious institutions to hire gays. If the bill would not have added the words "sexual orientation, gender identity or expression" in this paragraph the only change would have been that religious, fraternal, charitable, sectarian corporations, and associations would have been exempted!
This is bill could try and force the Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia to hire a "married" gay "Rosh Yeshiva"
there are more evil things in this bill that we plan to report on soon.
If you live in Pennsylvania call your state Representatives to vote against House/Senate Bill 300 If you have any friends or relatives in Pennsylvania ask them to do so.
Unfortunately the Republican Governor of Pennsylvania Tom Corbett supports this evil bill!
Pennsylvania Governor Supports Anti-Bias Bill
By
JON HURDLE
Published: December 18, 2013
PHILADELPHIA — Gov. Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania has thrown his support
behind a state bill that would ban discrimination on the grounds of
sexual orientation, adding unexpected support from a Republican who once
said gay marriage was the equivalent of a brother marrying a sister.
Matt Rourke/Associated Press
Gov. Tom Corbett, up for re-election next year, is trailing his challengers in the polls.
Mr. Corbett, in an interview
on Tuesday with The Philadelphia Inquirer, said he would back House
Bill 300, which would outlaw discrimination in employment, housing and
public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, gender
identity and gender expression.
You have a schism within the Republican Party. … They’re
searching to define their soul, that’s what’s going on. Is the
Republican party in this state a moderate party or is it an extreme
conservative party? That’s what they’re trying to figure out. It’s a
mirror of what’s going on in Washington. The gridlock in Washington is
less about Democrats and Republicans. It’s more about extreme
Republicans versus moderate Republicans.
… You’re seeing that play out in New York. … The Republican Party
candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by
moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the
Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these
extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon,
anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and
they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of
New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.
If they’re moderate Republicans like in the Senate right now, who
control the Senate — moderate Republicans have a place in their state.
George Pataki was governor of this state as a moderate Republican; but
not what you’re hearing from them on the far right.”
Married with two kids? How "boringly 20th-century". Blended families
and same-sex parents are increasingly vying for space with the nuclear
family on the small screen in line with shifts in Western society.
Talia
is about to give birth. At her side not one but two anxious dads, who
trade a loving kiss. Welcome to "Mom and Dads," an Israeli series
involving a menage-a-trois 2 men and a woman between two gay men and the mother of their
child.
"Television is much better than cinema at picking up on
changes in society, at responding to them in a fast and varied way,"
said the French film critic Xavier Leherpeur. or more accurately leading the charge (The first gay "wedding" happened on American TV almost 10 years before the first one happened in real life)
"That is especially true when it comes to gay "marriage" and gay "rights"."
Worldwide some 20 countries now allow gay "marriage" in all or part of their territory, including 16 out of the 50 US states.
"Clearly, Americans in Hollywood are the ones who tackle the subject the most," said Leherpeur.
The
cult sitcom "Friends" drew mild controversy see the problem back in 1996 for an episode
dubbed "The One with the Lesbian "Wedding"", while the sitcom "Ellen"
broke ground in 1997 with the coming out of its lead character -- and
that of series star Ellen DeGeneres.
Since then screenwriters have pushed the boundaries right back and will continue to push the boundaries of evil.
Shot
as a mockumentary, "Modern Family" has notched up the Obama family
among its fans since hitting screens in 2009 and a Orthodox Jewish girl who now is in favor of same gender "marriage" solely due to this propaganda show. The comedy revolves around
three interrelated "family" units: one heterosexual, one gay with an
adopted Vietnamese "daughter", and a third involving a sixty-something man
and his younger, voluptuous Colombian wife.
"One big (straight, gay, multi-cultural, traditional) happy "family"," runs the strapline for the show.
"It's
a very "open-minded" series, which offers a chance to highlight lots of
different types of "family" without pointing the finger at anyone," said
Aurelie Blot, of Bordeaux university in France who has studied "families"
on the American screen at length.
"The New Normal", which wrapped
up its first and so far only season in the United States in April,
follows a wealthy Californian gay "couple" who have a "child" through a
surrogate mother.
"Sean Saves the World", on screens since
October, is about a gay father and his teenaged daughter, while "The
Fosters", produced by Jennifer Lopez, features a lesbian couple and
their three kids.
US
television shows long revolved around an idealised nuclear family, from
the 1950s comedies like "Father Knows Best" to the 1970s "The Waltons".
But
these television families changed along with society except TV changed first, with "The Brady
Bunch", which aired from 1969 to 1974, revolving around a large blended
family with six children from previous relationships.
Blended
families of all shapes and sizes were on display through the 1980s, such
as in "Diff'rent Strokes" in which two African-American children learn
to live with a white adoptive father and his daughter.
Likewise a divorced working mum, her live-in male housekeeper and their respective children were the stars of "Who's the Boss".
When
shows reverted back to the nuclear family, it was often with a twist,
like the all-black cast of the "The Cosby Show", or the comically
dysfunctional family of 1990s hit show "Married... with Children".
"Right now we are in a cycle that is all about exploring new types of family," said Blot. And same-sex parenting appears to be the issue of choice for 21st-century screenwriters.
In
a different twist on the plotline of Israel's "Mom and Dads", in
Britain "Threesome" is about a straight couple who have a child together
with a gay friend.
"Shows like these teach us that these kinds of
"families" exist, and that they have the same problems as everyone else,"
said Leherpeur. of course they exist percentage wise much more on TV then in real life and they are only portrayed in "positive lights" on tv to force people to accept their life style
In France, the hit sitcom "Plus belle la vie"
(Life's so Sweet), which is followed daily by some five million viewers,
first raised the issue of same-sex parenting two years ago.
It showed a gay couple tying the knot in June 2013, just a month after France legalised same-sex marriage.
"We tried to cover that storyline as we would any other," said the show's lead writer Olivier Szulzynger. France has come a long way in the past decade, he says. I think the later statement explains his former
"At
the beginning of the 2000s, it was hard to tackle gay issues in French
fiction. People were not ready to see two men kissing on prime-time TV." and by people seeing it they began to accept it
"Today people just don't think in terms of gay or straight any more." TV at work the greatest propaganda invention know to mandkind
"Of
course our families have to change along with society," said Quoc Dang
Tran, one of the writers of the French show "Fais pas ci, Fais pas ca",
(Don't do this, Don't do that) which pits two families -- one strictly
conventional, the other a laid-back blended family with a flock of
children.
"There are no taboo subjects. The only thing is to be sensitive in how you tackle them." in other words only portray them in a positive light
Gov. Andrew Cuomo todayduring the state of the state backed a push to raise the minimum age at
which teens can be tried and charged as adults—one of a host of
initiatives rolled out in the last State of the State address of his
first term.
“Our juvenile justice laws are "outdated",” said the governor in his
speech, pointing to rules that allow 16- and 17-year-olds to be tried
and charged as adults in New York.
Only one other state in the nation has the same rules, Mr. Cuomo said: North Carolina.
“It’s not right. It’s not "fair". We must raise the age,” he said,
proposing a new commission on youth public safety and justice to push
through the changes in the next year.
(politicker)
The Bill's lead sponsor is the homosexual Daniel O'Donnell (main sponsor of the same gender "marriage" law), the bill's only co-sponsor is Ellen Jaffe (who represents New Square and parts of Monsey).
They Both also sponsored a bill that would raise the eligibility rate for how old someone can be to be allowed to be tried as a child (from 19 to 22) (no word yet if the governor also supports this bill) These bills will endanger the lives of many New Yorkers because those tried as juveniles are more likley to return to the street.
Ellen Jaffe continues to get the support of the "Godfather of New Square" (95+% NS voted for her) despite being a co-sponsor of the same gender "marriage" bill.
Cuomo aims to hike age of teens tried as adults as GOP balks, prosecutor praises
ALBANY — Gov. Cuomo’s
plan to raise the age at which New York teens can be tried as adults
received a lukewarm reaction from GOP lawmakers Thursday but won the
support of a top prosecutor.
Senate Deputy GOP leader Thomas Libous (R-Binghamton) said in a radio
interview he was open to Cuomo’s proposal but noted it was a sensitive
issue for lawmakers because of the violent nature of some youth crimes.
“Some of the most heinous crimes are committed by kids who are 16 and
17,” Brooklyn Sen. Martin Golden, another Republican and a former New
York City cop, told the Daily News.
Cuomo, in his State of the State address Wednesday, said New York was
one of only two states that treat 16-year-olds as adults in criminal
court. He called for a special commission to draft plans to increase the
age, but did not say by how much.
Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice, head of the state District Attorneys Association, hailed Cuomo’s announcement.
“What we are doing by treating these kids as adults is putting them in a
potential cycle of recidivism,” said Rice, who stressed the association
has yet to take a position on the issue.
Nearly 50,000 16- and 17-year-olds are arrested each year and charged
as adults, advocates said. Most are charged with "minor" offenses like
shoplifting and pot possession.
Rice and other advocates said treating 16- and 17-year-olds as adults
denies them the programs they "need" to turn their lives around.
“It’s a "myth" that prosecuting kids as adults promotes public safety,”
said Gabrielle Horowitz-Prisco of the Correctional Association of New
York.
22. I
will incite the wild beasts of the field against you, and they will
bereave you, utterly destroy your livestock and diminish you, and your
roads will become desolate.
25. I
will bring upon you an army that avenges the avenging of a covenant,
and you will gather into your cities. I will incite the plague in your
midst, and you will be delivered into the enemy's hands,
26. when
I break for you the staff of bread, and ten women will bake your bread
in one oven, and they will bring back your bread by weight, and you will
eat, yet not be satisfied.
Secretary Kerry on U.S. Deep Concern with Nigeria’s Enactment of the Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act
Secretary of State John Kerry
2014-01-13
The United States is deeply "concerned" by Nigeria’s enactment of the Same Sex "Marriage Prohibition" Act.
Beyond even prohibiting same sex marriage, this law dangerously
restricts freedom of assembly, association, and expression for all
Nigerians.
Moreover, it is inconsistent with Nigeria’s international legal
obligations and "undermines" the democratic reforms and human rights
protections enshrined in its 1999 Constitution.
People everywhere deserve to live in freedom and equality. No one
should face violence or discrimination for who they are or who they
love.
We join with those in Nigeria who appeal for the protection of their
fellow citizens’ fundamental "freedoms" and universal "human rights".
(State Department)
ABUJA, Nigeria (AP) — Nigeria's president has signed a law that bans
same-sex "marriage" and criminalizes homosexual (these are the vehicles that help them organize "gay rights" in other countries) associations , societies
and meetings, with penalties of up to 14 years in jail.
The
Associated Press obtained a copy of the Same Sex "Marriage" Prohibition
Act on Monday. It was signed by President Goodluck Jonathan and dated
Jan. 7.
It was unclear why the law's passage has been shrouded in
secrecy. The copy obtained from the House of Representatives in Abuja,
the capital, showed it was signed by those lawmakers and senators on
Dec. 17, but no announcement was made.
Secretary of State John
Kerry said Monday the United States was "deeply concerned" by a law that
"dangerously restricts freedom of assembly, association, and expression
for all Nigerians."
It is now a crime to have a meeting of gays, or to operate or go to a gay club, society or organization.
The
new law says, "A person who registers, operates or participates in gay
clubs, societies or organizations, or directly or indirectly makes
public show of same-sex amorous relationship in Nigeria, commits an
offense and is liable on conviction to a term of 10 years."
Anyone convicted of entering into a same-sex "marriage" contract or civil union faces up to 14 years' imprisonment, it says.
Nigeria already has a law inherited from British colonizers that makes homosexual sex illegal in the West African nation so did Israel but unfortunately Israel got rid of that law in 1988 .
"If
that bill passes, it will be illegal for us to even be holding this
conversation," Olumide Makanjuola, executive director of the Initiative
For "Equality" in Nigeria, told AP.
Those who will suffer most under
the law are poor, gay Nigerians, she said. Many rich ones already have
left the country, or say they will fly elsewhere to have sex, she said.
(AP) highlights our additions
Samantha Power, U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations, characterized the law as a "big
setback for human rights for all Nigerians."
According to the News
Agency of Nigeria (NAN), the bill passed by the Senate at the end of
last year introduces a 14-year prison sentence for people who are
convicted of entering into a same-sex "marriage" or "civil union".
It also reportedly makes it an offense to administer, witness or help at a same-sex "marriage" ceremony.
NAN said the law also
forbids people from running gay clubs, societies, processions or
meetings in Nigeria. The punishment for such acts is 10 years in prison,
it said.
And the law even states
that "marriages" or civil unions from outside the country will be void
inside the country, according to NAN.
Last month, Uganda's parliament passed "controversial" legislation that would make some gay acts punishable by life in prison.
For the bill to become law, it would need the signature of that county's president, who has 30 days to make a decision.
The U.K. and some other governments in Western Europe
have previously threatened to pull aid to countries that pass laws
persecuting homosexuals, something that has scared other African
countries, such as Uganda, into stalling their own legislation.
Last year, polls released by Nigerian polling group NOI
found 92% of Nigerians supported the proposed Same Sex Marriage
Prohibition Act. Just 1% of those polled strongly opposed the law.
Another survey from Pew Research last year found 98% of Nigerians didn't think homosexuality should be accepted by society
— the highest percentage of any country surveyed. These numbers are
truly exceptional. Even in Russia, a country that became notorious for
its anti-gay laws last year, approval ratings above 90% would be
extraordinary.
Boston’s renowned Maimonides School was established by
Rav Soloveitchik in 1937, and it maintains a reputation for providing
some of the most advanced learning Jewish day schools can offer. This
past fall, it offered a variety of history courses to the senior class,
including AP Government, Art History, and, amongst others, a Minorities
in America course. The course material covered a wide range of issues
and addressed the minority experience of African Americans, Asian
Americans, and others. The gay community was addressed as a sample unit
on sexual minorities, and parents began to complain. Snide jokes were
made, parentally-authored emailed were sent, and enough complaints were
made that the teacher brought the unit to a shuddering halt and
discontinued the homosexuality unit entirely. while it was removed, the parents were right to fight against this, and it may have been an oversight by the administration who originally allowed it who may have not known what was in the curriculum, the fact that this can happen show us how dangerous this movement isWhen a "teaching moment" was
at the fingertips of this institution, it chose passivity and
ignorance.
At Yeshiva University, there is limited discussion of this
topic. While other institutions have GSAs (Gay-Straight Alliances), notice that this low-life wants a Gay-Straight Alliance in a yeshiva and
the nation as a whole engages in a forward-marching process to address
the existence of a long-ignored yet prominent population of its
citizens, the religious community has remained "tragically" silent by
comparison. While there are internet forums and small-scale
organizations like "Ortho"dykes in New York and בית הפתוחה in Jerusalem,
the gay "Orthodox" experience is a conundrum from which the religious
community has largely disengaged.
While non-Orthodox Jewish groups might "might" I don't think this extra word was unintentional compromise halakha
– Jewish law – in the name of "progress", they have nevertheless done the
powerful job of choosing to acknowledge the existence of sexual
minorities and grappling with a strong and antiquated "heterosexist
culture of the West" whose "impositions" on the lives of "all" have been
greatly troubling. One organization, Mayyim Hayyim Living Waters
Community Mikveh, located in Newton, Massachusetts, has chosen to
grapple with the seeming contradiction of Leviticus 18:22’s prohibition
of male homosexual activity ("rabbinically" it's really assur m'dorysa learned out from "maase eretz mitrzrayim" expanded to include that of
female homosexual activity) by "sanctifying" sexual identity. In addition
to the more traditional occasions of menstrual purity and conversion,
they have "expanded" their use of the mikveh, Jewish ritual bath. Accounts
have been given of people thus employing the use of this Jewish
practice to commemorate sexual transitions, including sexual
reassignment surgeries, "coming out" ceremonies, and other related
occasions. or in Mayyim Hayyims own words "Coming out as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender"
The United States is also currently engaged in a nationwide
debate over the legalization of gay "marriage" and the "acceptability" of
transgender culture in school settings. The Mathis family is currently
one such example of society’s grappling to make space for transgender
children in a school setting, spurring debates on the gender binary’s
place, or lack thereof, in the bathroom setting in other words allowing a boy in the girls bathroom. Certain universities,
in a similar direction, have chosen to provide “male-identified” and
“female-identified” as well as “neutral” assignations to their
restrooms, something I believe should be nationally adopted as mandated
policy3 bathrooms, and still boy allowed in girls bathrooms. The heterosexual fallacy, so often and so fortunately broken
down in college environments, still holds strong in many religious
frameworks, including the staple Modern Orthodox institution of higher
education, Yeshiva University. There is no LGBTQA society on campusand this mamzeres wants to change that?, nor
is homosexuality a topic often discussed in the classroom.
Additionally, the separate sex education has contributed to an increase
of women-specific classes such as “Women in Jewish Law” and “Women in
the Bible,” which is a wonderful stride toward liberalism by a 1950’s
standard, but a retrograde move in light of contemporary civilization.
Most universities include a Gender and Sexuality department, and yet
this university offers only a Women’s Studies department so she wants YU to promote what the torah hates?. The omission
of entire fields of pseudointellectualism and of sexuality is a blatant
refusal to acknowledge reality or endorse evil practices. It is juvenile to deny Kinsey
experiments Kinsey wrote this about homosexuality in the Orthodox Jewish Community "that the Homosexual among Orthodox Jewish groups appears to be phenomenally low", sexual variety, and gender ambiguity. I would hope the
Jewish people would champion the concept of nuance and struggle in order
to do the grandest kavod habriyot, respect for one’s fellow creatures, and acknowledge their existence of course we should acknowledge their existence you can't fight a war with out acknowledging that your enemy exists.
The current age is a distinctly exciting time of
progression and national debate. Globalization and technological
advancements have contributed to an ongoing discussion which engages in
discovering more about sexuality and which facilitates the maximum
standards of inclusivity for minorities. As Jews, we must know better
than perhaps any other collectively-identified group in world history
that silence is denial. May we be, in the words of King Lear, only “more
sinned against than sinning,” and never, God forbid, the reverse.
(thebeaconmag) The beacon was formally a paper linked up with YU but has since left them, they now advertise for Chovevi Torah on their website, Rachel Renz went to Maimonides and is currently in Stern, she signed a petition against the OU and Young Israel for protesting against same gender "marriage"
National Security Advisor Susan Rice (Photo public domain)
National
Security Adviser Susan Rice on Wednesday stressed support of LGBT
"rights" remains an essential part of American foreign policy.
“The United States remains firmly committed to promoting freedom,
opportunity and prosperity everywhere,” she said during a speech at the
Newseum in downtown Washington during Human Rights First’s annual Human
Rights Summit. “We stand "proudly" for the rights of women, the LGBT
community and minorities.”
Rice noted President Obama spoke in support of LGBT rights during a June press conference in the Senegalese capital
with the African country’s president the day after the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional
and struck down California’s Proposition 8. Senegal is among the more
than 70 countries in which homosexuality remains criminalized. BH India recently joined them
The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations further highlighted Obama’s meeting
with Russian LGBT Network Chair Igor Kochetkov, Olga Lenkova of Coming
Out and seven other Russian human rights advocates during the G-20
summit that took place in St. Petersburg, Russia, in September.
Rice noted the U.S. “often can cooperate with Russia” on arms control
and other “vital interests,” but she was quick to criticize the
Kremlin’s human rights record.
“As we meet these mutual challenges, "we" don’t remain silent about the
Russian government’s systematic efforts to curtail the actions of
Russian civil society, to stigmatize the LGBT "community",” Rice said. “"We"
deplore selective justice and the prosecution of those who protest the
corruption and cronyism that is sapping Russia’s economic future and
limiting its potential to play its full role on the world stage.”
Rice also pointed out in her speech the U.S. has backed pro-LGBT
resolutions on the U.N. Human Rights Council and in the Organization of
American States and the Pan-American Health Organization.
“No one should face discrimination because of who they are or whom
they love,” she said. “We’re working to lead internationally as we have
domestically on LGBT issues.”
Rice noted the Obama administration supports “full equality” for LGBT
Americans that includes the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” She also
cited slain San Francisco City Supervisor Harvey Milk and the
late-former New York Congresswoman Bella Abzug , who introduced the first
federal gay rights bill in 1975(who had Malkiel, and Aaron Kotler's aunt endorsement when she ran for mayor 2 years later), as among the “champions who fought to
bring us closer to ideals” outlined in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights that members of the U.N. General Assembly approved 65 years
ago this month.
“Continuing their work at home and expanding it around the globe is
our great commission as inheritors of their legacy,” Rice said.
She also met with Kaspars Zalitis of the Latvian LGBT advocacy group
Mozaika, Jovanka Todorovic of the Labris Lesbian Human Rights
Organization in Serbia and other human rights advocates after her
speech.
Rice served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from 2009
until Obama tapped her to succeed then-National Security Advisor Tom
Donilon in June after he resigned. She backed a resolution in support of
LGBT rights the U.N. Human Rights Council adopted in 2011.
She withdrew her name as a potential successor to then-Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton late last year amid controversy over the Sept.
2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that left
Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others dead.
(Washington Blade) highlights our additions
In a major policy address in Washington, National Security Adviser Susan
Rice said the promotion of human rights around the world is central to
U.S. foreign policy
“The United States remains firmly committed to promoting freedom,
opportunity and prosperity everywhere. We stand "proudly" for the rights
of women, the LGBT community and minorities,” Ms. Rice said. “We defend
the freedom of all people to worship as they choose, and we champion
open government and civil society, freedom of assembly and a free press.
We support these rights and freedoms with a wide range of tools because
history shows that nations that respect the rights of all their
citizens are more just, more prosperous and more secure.”
(Voice Of America) (A Official US Government News service) from Wikipedia
Voice of America (VOA) is the official external broadcast institution of the United States federal government.
Notice she says worship not religion, what she means by worship is avodah similar to the mishna in Pirkay Avos
הוא היה אומר, על שלושה דברים העולם עומד--על התורה, ועל העבודה, ועל גמילות החסדים In short a country can have full freedom of worship even if it bans that milah, shechita, forces people to work on Shabbos etc.
Listen to the tax funded pro LGBT propaganda
Goverment Propaganda machine at work to promote the LGBT (I changed the title)
By Elizabeth Chuck, Staff Writer, NBC News
News
consumers in the U.S. can now hear and watch reports from one of the
largest broadcasting groups in the world — after decades of their
taxpayer dollars funding them.
The change is due to a law, which
went into effect on July 2, that authorizes an independent network of
U.S. government-supported broadcasters called the Broadcasting Board of
Governors (BBG) to transmit their programs — which include Voice of
Americaprovider of part of the pro LGBT editorial, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Middle East Broadcasting
Networks, Radio Free Asia, and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting — to U.S.
households.
BBG's mission, according to its website,
is to "inform, engage and connect people around the world in support of
freedom and democracy." Its budget for the 2012 fiscal year, fully
funded by taxpayers, was $752.7 million, according to a spokeswoman.
But since 1948, BBG had only been allowed to disseminate its material
to foreign listeners — this due to a law called the Smith-Mundt
Act passed three years after World War II.
The purpose of the
Smith-Mundt Act — also called the U.S. Information and Education
Exchange Act of 1948 — was to "promote a better understanding of the
United States in other countries, and to increase a mutual understanding
between the people of the United States and the people of other
countries."
The law was first challenged in 1972 when J. William
Fulbright, D-Ark., declared the U.S. was funding propaganda, and argued
Voice of America, BBG's oldest and biggest network, "should be given the
opportunity to take [its] rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War
relics." Further restrictions on the dissemination of the material were
implemented.
"The domestic dissemination ban was not really
intended to protect the American public from propaganda," Emily Metzgar,
a professor at Indiana University school of journalism and a former
U.S. diplomat who supports the change to the law, said. "The historical
record suggests it was really more about protecting a nascent broadcast
industry in the United States right after World War II, and it was over
time that more and more politics got interjected into the discussion."
Last year, two lawmakers proposed the bipartisan Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012.
Introduced
by Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, and Adam Smith, D-Wash., the
Modernization Act would have amended the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act so BBG's U.S.-funded,
foreign audience-intended broadcasts could finally be heard in the U.S however that bill was not voted on, instead they choose to pass the bill tucked inside of the 1,898 page National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 a bill which included buying new submarines.
It became law on July 2.
A spokeswoman for BBG pointed out the
broadcast group's content had been available online for years, and that
the new law just makes their programs accessible in broadcast quality in
the U.S. to anyone who requests them.
She also responded to a
slew of recent news headlines that suggested BBG would be spreading
propaganda, including one from Foreign Policy magazine, which read,
"U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to
Americans."
"Just because a news organization receives government
funding doesn't mean it disseminates propaganda," Lynne Weil, director
of communications and external affairs for BBG, said, citing Britain's
BBC as a government-supported media outlet. "We stand "proudly" for the rights of the LGBT community" sound like propaganda to me
Metzgar, the former U.S. diplomat, was relaxed about the change.
"Everyone
who is consuming any news at all should be media-literate, reading from
a wide range of sources, triangulating what they can about the truth.
In that sense, I'm not particularly alarmed about the government having a
new path to propagandize the public," she said.
A State
Department official said in an emailed statement to NBC News that "the
statutory intent remains for us to focus such materials on foreign
audiences and not to pro-actively create materials for domestic
audiences or pro-actively distribute our materials domestically." for now, and social security cards were originally only supposed to be for social security
BBG's journalists "risk their lives" to report in more than 100 countries and 61 languages, Weil said.
"This
is good-quality reporting in places where many U.S. media may not have
correspondents. Why shouldn't it be available in the United States?" she
said. "U.S. taxpayers should know what they're funding." we do now and we don't like it
Ted
Lipien, a former Voice of America employee based in California who
retired from the network in 2006, said his biggest concern about BBG
expanding into the American market was the "quality" of their journalism
diminishing.
"The agency has been very badly mismanaged in recent
years," he said. "What I suspect will happen is that they will
de-emphasize providing news and information for foreign audiences, which
is their core and primary mission, and they will focus on the domestic
market."
Weil denied that will be an issue.
"The target
audience for BBG broadcasters will still be international – that is,
individuals living in countries where the media are not entirely free.
The new law doesn't change the legislation that mandates the BBG to
focus on audiences overseas, nor are we seeking to change that," she
said.
"It also does not direct or allow the BBG itself to begin
broadcasting in the United States, and we do not seek to do that,
either. But the new law does mean that the entire range of "great"
journalism like pro homosexuality propaganda that U.S. taxpayer-supported civilian broadcasters produce
can now be seen and heard by more people — including the ones who pay
for it," she added.
(nbcnews) highlighted are my additions
Married with two kids? How "boringly 20th-century". Blended families
and same-sex parents are increasingly vying for space with the nuclear
family on the small screen in line with shifts in Western society.
Talia
is about to give birth. At her side not one but two anxious dads, who
trade a loving kiss. Welcome to "Mom and Dads," an Israeli series
involving a menage-a-trois 2 men and a woman between two gay men and the mother of their
child.
"Television is much better than cinema at picking up on
changes in society, at responding to them in a fast and varied way,"
said the French film critic Xavier Leherpeur. or more accurately leading the charge (The first gay "wedding" happened on American TV almost 10 years before the first one happened in real life)
"That is especially true when it comes to gay "marriage" and gay "rights"."
Worldwide some 20 countries now allow gay "marriage" in all or part of their territory, including 16 out of the 50 US states.
"Clearly, Americans in Hollywood are the ones who tackle the subject the most," said Leherpeur.
The
cult sitcom "Friends" drew mild controversy see the problem back in 1996 for an episode
dubbed "The One with the Lesbian "Wedding"", while the sitcom "Ellen"
broke ground in 1997 with the coming out of its lead character -- and
that of series star Ellen DeGeneres.
Since then screenwriters have pushed the boundaries right back and will continue to push the boundaries of evil.
Shot
as a mockumentary, "Modern Family" has notched up the Obama family
among its fans since hitting screens in 2009 and a Orthodox Jewish girl who now is in favor of same gender "marriage" solely due to this propaganda show. The comedy revolves around
three interrelated "family" units: one heterosexual, one gay with an
adopted Vietnamese "daughter", and a third involving a sixty-something man
and his younger, voluptuous Colombian wife.
"One big (straight, gay, multi-cultural, traditional) happy "family"," runs the strapline for the show.
"It's
a very "open-minded" series, which offers a chance to highlight lots of
different types of "family" without pointing the finger at anyone," said
Aurelie Blot, of Bordeaux university in France who has studied "families"
on the American screen at length.
"The New Normal", which wrapped
up its first and so far only season in the United States in April,
follows a wealthy Californian gay "couple" who have a "child" through a
surrogate mother.
"Sean Saves the World", on screens since
October, is about a gay father and his teenaged daughter, while "The
Fosters", produced by Jennifer Lopez, features a lesbian couple and
their three kids.
US
television shows long revolved around an idealised nuclear family, from
the 1950s comedies like "Father Knows Best" to the 1970s "The Waltons".
But
these television families changed along with society except TV changed first, with "The Brady
Bunch", which aired from 1969 to 1974, revolving around a large blended
family with six children from previous relationships.
Blended
families of all shapes and sizes were on display through the 1980s, such
as in "Diff'rent Strokes" in which two African-American children learn
to live with a white adoptive father and his daughter.
Likewise a divorced working mum, her live-in male housekeeper and their respective children were the stars of "Who's the Boss".
When
shows reverted back to the nuclear family, it was often with a twist,
like the all-black cast of the "The Cosby Show", or the comically
dysfunctional family of 1990s hit show "Married... with Children".
"Right now we are in a cycle that is all about exploring new types of family," said Blot. And same-sex parenting appears to be the issue of choice for 21st-century screenwriters.
In
a different twist on the plotline of Israel's "Mom and Dads", in
Britain "Threesome" is about a straight couple who have a child together
with a gay friend.
"Shows like these teach us that these kinds of
"families" exist, and that they have the same problems as everyone else,"
said Leherpeur. of course they exist percentage wise much more on TV then in real life and they are only portrayed in "positive lights" on tv to force people to accept their life style
In France, the hit sitcom "Plus belle la vie"
(Life's so Sweet), which is followed daily by some five million viewers,
first raised the issue of same-sex parenting two years ago.
It showed a gay couple tying the knot in June 2013, just a month after France legalised same-sex marriage.
"We tried to cover that storyline as we would any other," said the show's lead writer Olivier Szulzynger. France has come a long way in the past decade, he says. I think the later statement explains his former
"At
the beginning of the 2000s, it was hard to tackle gay issues in French
fiction. People were not ready to see two men kissing on prime-time TV." and by people seeing it they began to accept it
"Today people just don't think in terms of gay or straight any more." TV at work the greatest propaganda invention know to mandkind
"Of
course our families have to change along with society," said Quoc Dang
Tran, one of the writers of the French show "Fais pas ci, Fais pas ca",
(Don't do this, Don't do that) which pits two families -- one strictly
conventional, the other a laid-back blended family with a flock of
children.
"There are no taboo subjects. The only thing is to be sensitive in how you tackle them." in other words only portray them in a positive light
