Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Navigation |
Van and Jake MUST appear on Ellen in the fallOkay... Now that I've reached the biggest and best(est) site of Nuke fans... After watching Van Hansis and Jake Silbermann present Ellen with her latest Emmy, I was surprised to find out that neither of them have been guests on the Ellen show. Sooo.... we are campaigning to make it happen. The fall shows are not etched in granite yet, and what a back to school special it would be so please go to: and send Ellen an E-mail suggesting that Jake and Van appear in a guest spot during one of the Fall line-ups new episodes of The Ellen Degeneres Show. We got Nuke to kiss, now, let's reward our actors!
Submitted by Robert B (96 points) (17 posts) on Thu, 2008-06-26 16:47. |
No Nuke on Ellen
Thanks for the link.
I, for one, have written to ask The Ellen Degeneres Show to refrain from inviting Van and Jake. For one thing Ellen is a real hero and ATWT are fakes; they have followed and continue to follow the AFA party line of 'Love the Sin, Hate the Sinner." Having them present the Emmy award to Ellen was a disgrace.
It would pain me to know that all that Ellen stands for now is "Love the Sinner." Please DO NOT ask Elen to invite Van, Jake or anyone from ATWT onto her show.
van and jake on ellen?
fakes? hmmm
ATWT are fakes
I wrote "ATWT are fakes" not Van and Jake. But as I have said elsewhere, as a couple, Van and Jake are inseparable from ATWT and their roles as Luke and Noah. If they do an interview together, they are doing publicity for ATWT.
In the midwest gay kids are being taught to 'love' themselves but hate their sinful ways. I believe that is the story that ATWT has chosen to tell. I am disappointed about that, but I feel I have a right to be angry when the show receives Kudos for doing the work of the AFA.
If doing the work of the AFA for the AFA is the new gay frontier in society, we desperately need more angry queers. I grew up and live in the Midwest, too. You may not know this, but Act Up brought needed medical care to many gay people living in isoltion in the communities you talk about.
Believe me Nothing would please me more than if a year from now I have to say I was wrong because ATWT finally started to tell an inclusive gay story. Until then, I don't believe their representatives deserve to be in the same room as Ellen.
.
But is Ellen
But is Ellen that enthusiastic about the Luke and Noah storyline? I mean, Van and Jake presented the award to her, but she didn't even throw them a little complement about how well she thought of them playing gay teenage boyfriends on a daytime SOAP, in what is considered 'groundbreaking' by American standards. I don't think she has even mentioned about Nuke on her show.
I would think that if Ellen had wanted Van and Jake on her show, she would have envited them months ago while the storyline was still 'hot off the press' instead of what it has now become...quite the embarrassement.
is Ellen Uninthused?
Second, Ellen has never projected her show as a 'gay' show. Or a 'gay' person running a talk show (like Graham Norton.) Her's is a talk show with someone who just happens to be gay, who just happens to like to dance, who just happens to be funny. Only recently has she used her show and persence as a platform for select gay issues.
Nuke would be a poor choice for that because ATWT is a poor choice for ground-breaking role models. (Amos and Andy were ground breaking in thier day, too.) She has been wise to avoid the controversy. Ellen has dignity.
.
I agree.
I'd rather see a REAL gay couple
Like NPH and David.
Yes, a real gay celebrity couple
NPH and David. T.R. and Marc. Or George Takei and Brad Altman comparing notes with Ellen and Portia about their wedding ceremonies.
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/
Sigh...
Okay, because you believe the bad hype, that P&G is wary of showing the sexual side of gay life... okay, maybe they are. Or, maybe the spin-doctors are actually telling the truth when they say the storyline is intended to progress slowly. It wouldn't be the first time this has been done on a soap. In a time of declining soap opera viewership. I understand the impatience and frustration over the lack of kisses and that they still haven't lost their "gayginity". But... I do enjoy the slow evolvement of Luke and Noah's slooooooow romance. Getting to know each other, what makes them tick, why they feel the way they do, their hopes, expectations, and disappointments. While there are other shows out there that display rampant gay kissing, fondling, hand-holding, nude scenes, and actual lovemaking... NONE of them are really developing a relationship where they fall in love before they fall in sex.
As for Act-up, I do like that organization, however, they still did nothing for the actual mid-west I'm talking about. I'm not talking about St. Louis, or Minneapolis, or Dubuque or their "metro" areas. I'm talking about small town (under 20,000 pop) mid-america, which is THE actual current fan-base for soap operas.
Oh My...
Well I don't believe the ATWT hype. Proctor and Gamble (the producers) are a billion dollar company, they don't need anyone to apologize for them. We haven't seen a story-line "progress" this slowly for over 50 years; it isn't progressing it's prohibiting. I am glad you enjoy the slow romance. I find it insulting and it implies that being gay is something to be ashamed of -something too disgusting to see. I am reminded of that fact every time Luke and Noah are on the screen.
We have been told very little about what makes this couple tick, or any of the couples on this show. I have no idea what Luke hopes for. What day did I miss? This show is not about character development, it's is about plot. They have never developed this romance, they skipped over it from December to March, when a romance could have been developing and the most intimacy that happened was when Luke silently straightened Noah's collar. He could have hired a maid.
Let me explain, because you don't seem to know: the legislation that was passed because of the efforts of Act-Up helped all people with HIV, even those living in the towns of population 200 in the midwest. You might resent that, but it's a fact.
I have yet to see the statistics for the fan base for Soaps as far as rural versus urban. Please direct me to that data.
.
There's more HOT MAN-TO-MAN ACTION in small towns
than you would imagine.
Certainly more than what's on ATWT -- which is to say zilch.
Man-to-man
Sir, I'm 42 y.o. living in the same town I grew up in: Zeigler, IL. A tiny little hamlet of 1,200 and declining. And I'm well aware of how much man-to-man action there is, and how much of it is open or accepted, and how much is whispered about behind their backs. When I was 16 my first boyfriend died 3 days after our first kiss and homophobia was so rampant I was unable to publicly acknowledge our relationsihip. I am by no means a sexual prude, there are men from my military service who could testify to that, but I will stand by my complete support of the Nuke storyline as an example of romance as opposed to lustmance.
And, while I enjoy Ellen as an entertainer, she certainly did not get her start as a celebrity by openly admitting her lesbianism. Her start came while playing an ambiguously straight woman. Since she didn't come right out and say she was a lesbian, by the above detracting logic, shouldn't we also be abandoning her?
Farmers Know Homosexuality Is Natural
More fuel
Not to throw gasoline on the fire, but although it is known that homosexuality occurs in nature, Christian fundamentalists believe that since Adam tasted the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, mankind must now make moral judgements of their own actions. It is their escape clause for the "God made me this way" argument.
Let me make it clear: I do not agree with these arguments. I am only presenting them to help illustrate how complicated this discussion can be.
Man2Man in Small Towns?
I wonder whether there is m2m in small towns now (there sure wasn't any that I knew of when I was growing up in the '60s!) -- I would look to Robert B for authoritative answers on this subject. I suppose that the Internet has helped that cause.
Another good reference is the book Farm Boys by Will Fellows, which is a series of interviews of gay men of various ages who grew up in the rural Midwest. Very much worth the read.
I don't hold Ellen up to
You seem to have missed part of our earlier debate on this topic, so I have to ask readers to excuse me for repeating myself.
P&G seem to be acting in collusion with the AFA to present a "Love the Sinner" world view at the worst, and at the least seem to be exploiting popular gay characters for profit. Both actions are reprehensible to me. While Ellen represents courage, P&G show me shame and cowardliness.
I am very sorry to hear you lost a true love at an early age and were unable to express your grief. Our stories are similar. It makes me think, "that's what 'they' do;" The 'they' that teach us unwarranted shame. My resolve has been that some day kids won't have to face that. I believe that ATWT are blocking our progress not helping any of us in that regard. They messed up a groundbreaking opportunity. Perhaps if they had made note of Ellen's life, they would have done things differently.
.
maybe if I put it this way:
Sorry to have to repeat this folks
Sorry, I have never heard of the North American Union.
ATWT has several story-lines, but because most of them are not directly trying to show a world view of "Love the sinner, Hate the sin," it doesn't exclude the one that does. What's your point, anyway?
Both the spokeswoman for P&G and the head of the AFA confirmed that they we in "talks" with P&G after the first Luke and Noah kiss back in August of 2007. The second kiss was absolutely necessary for the plot and after that there were no kisses for how many months? The ban occurred after talking with the AFA. The AFA did not issue an Action Alert at the time.
Now, after the most recent kiss, the head of the AFA indicated in a Canadian radio interview that P&G had been going along with their request (a ban on kissing and affection) up until then. The AFA were asking P&G to return to their original request, a "Love the sinner, Hate the sin" story.
P&G have been trying to play both sides and the AFA won.
Oh my
P&G and the AFA
CBS spokesperson
The CBS spokesperson doesn't factor in at all. CBS has no choice over the content of the show. They have only said that they, CBS, did not request them, ATWT, to ban kissing.
The AFA could have, and should have, issued an Action Alert right after the second kiss, why didn't they? A better question is why wouldn't they? One reason could be that P&G assured them it would be the second and LAST kiss by Nuke. No, reason for the AFA to protest then. But 6 months later if P&G goes back on their word, like they could have with the recent Nuke kiss, then the AFA would have only one recourse: to go through with their earlier threat and stage an 'Action Alert. That's what they did.
Don't forget that P&G are the big boys. They should be the ones answering these questions, honestly and truthfully. Why anyone feels a need to defend them, is beyond me.
.
What the...
Seriously. I'm reading some of these comments goin "What the fuck?" C'mon now.
I do have to say I agree with everything Robert B. said.
Here's the thing, Van and Jake...they aren't Luke and Noah. Yes, if they go on Ellen they obviously have to talk about the storyline because it is what they're known for. Here's what I want. I want to see Van and Jake get the recognition they damn well deserve. For being grateful, courageous, and amazing throughout this process. More people should know just how amazingly talented they are because I know for a fact you can't tell me at one point, they haven't made you cry. I'll be the first to admit, I was heart- broken on the break-up episode and the episodes since then. This storyline, it would be not as big if it wasn't portrayed by such giving actors.
THAT's why I want Van and Jake on the Ellen show.
You can totally disagree with everything I just said, that's cool. Your opinion is your opinion. And this is mine.
ETA: SEVERAL people are writing to Ellen about this. I am one of them. I have a lot of close friends that are, and one of them actually started a petition on the Luke and Noah Wiki(which is HUGE by the way) Just putting that in there :)
wOOt!
This is the...
I totally agree with you, there. I have shed several a tear. Van deserved the Emmy this year and last. (I only hope the shabby role ATWT is giving him to act doesn't hurt his future career.)
My point isn't whether the actors deserve credit, they deserve credit as actors, separately and in the proper venue.
If you believe they deserve credit, why are we not pushing for them to be on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno? or the Today show? or on an "actors who play gay" show on Oprah? Instead, what this topic is asking is that Ellen and the Ellen DeGeneres Show give the 'good gay keeping seal of approval' to ATWT. (That's what the producers of the Emmys were trying to do when they chose them as presenters and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation if it weren't for that.)
When Van and Jake appear together they are not representing themselves -they are promoting ATWT. How many actors show up on Leno's couch with their co-stars, even when they are there to promote their show?
Are you saying that the producers can do any number of despicable things and if the actors are talented it shouldn't matter? Because that seems to be your argument.
Ellen has not been in the habit of promoting soap opera couples or soap actors. Why should her show make an exception, now?
ATWT and these characters are not the paragons of gay inclusiveness, quite the opposite. I believe they represent complacency and acceptance of a shame based world view of gay folks. If the characters they portrayed were examples of inclusiveness I have no doubt that many shows would want to interview them.
.
Nuke Wiki
While their numbers may be impressive, the attitude is not. The Nuke Wiki seems to be a closed circle of friends because the admins seem to kill threads they disagree with.
While the editors of AfterElton have disagreed with what I have to say about Nuke, they seem to understand how gay voices are often squelched even amongst our "friends." I thank AfterElton for this opportunity to allow my gay voice to be heard.
To be honest with you, AfterElton is the only relief I have felt after the callous treatment I received at the Nuke Wiki. But really, more power to you.
.
Robert - Welcome To The Debate!
Robert - Just so you know, I've been fighting this exact same prejudice against Nuke for quite some time here on AE. The dominant opinion has been against your (and my) view, though the anger has been fading in recent weeks as it's become apparent that the show really does want to try to do the right thing. Instead, the anger has mostly turned to how poorly the show has been written, or how illogical Noah has been acting. (I've also fought that one, since Noah's actions are almost trite in the way they conform to basic psychological theory.)
I totally respect Nukely's right to his opinion, but he couldn't be more wrong. The AFA has been livid with P&G and the show for ignoring their wishes, and especially about the kissing. The AFA's comments about P&G's cooperation referred specifically to the past, before Nuke came along. They have been very clear that they are deeply disappointed that P&G has NOT followed their wishes on this issue. The show appears definitely to have taken it slowly with the progression of the relationship and the physical component of it. I personally believe they were trying very hard to tread a fine line between doing what they wanted to do, i.e., showing a gay relationship, and not losing all their old time fans, who were very upset with the relationship.
The idea about "love the sinner, hate the sin" is indeed where much of evangelical Christianity has gone in the last couple of years, and the AFA fits into that category. It's totally invalid to extend that concept to what ATWT is trying to do. I feel you have to have blinders on to not see that the show is FULLY behind Nuke in the sense of seeing them as totally equal characters with others, and totally worthy of our full respect. They're portraying the rest of Oakdale as being equally supportive. Yes, they are taking the physicality slowly to not offend conservative viewers. But they're inexorably moving down an obvious path. To turn that situation into a "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing on the part of the show is just wrong.
Robert, be aware that as a fan of the Nuke storyline you are in a distinct minority on this site. But your presence is certainly welcomed by me!
Let me adjust that for you
Wrong. The AFA's comments referred to the period of time between the kisses when the AfterElton clock was first ticking.
I personally believe that you have described exploitation. They took a popular story, the gay story-line, but watering it down to get the most milage out of it, rather than giving an honest portrayal. If they couldn't risk losing the old farts, they shouldn't have tried to take them on a gay roller coaster only to make it into a "hate the sin" story.
I can't wear your blinders. In your soapy world straight couples are allowed kiss, make love, have intimate moments and even shower together, but it is shameful for gay couples to do the same things. It's too disgusting to even imagine them doing it: being in love. If you see this gay couple having the same level of intimacy as the straight couples, you're wearing the blinders, you're blind to the fact that ... please explain how you see them as "totally equal characters" with the other lovers on the show. Luke isn't even sexually equal with his 14 year old nephew! (or emotionally equal either, but that's another story)
I love you, too. Does that mean we can straighten each others collars, now?
.... Oops, I had to come back and edit this. My name is Robert, too. My bad. I realize that what you really wanted was for him (Robert B) to straighten your collar, and not me. Gosh, I feel foolish.
Collar straightening:
.... Oops, I had to come back and edit this. My name is Robert, too. My bad. I realize that what you really wanted was for him (Robert B) to straighten your collar, and not me. Gosh, I feel foolish.
Aww Nukely: I would love to straighten your collar and hope you would be willing to return the "singular" act of intimacy. Even though Nuke actually have shown much more intimacy than this. Apparently, your anger over P&G and the AFA has caused you to stop watching.
Yes, Dennis Mpls I was feeling a bit overwhelmed by the Nukamosity on this site, it's sort of novel to have a debate with fellow gay (I'm presuming) men and women over the proper course of advancing the cause.
The appearance of Nuke on Ellen and the resulting increased awareness concerning the storyline is EXACTLY why I want it to happen. As far as Ellen's putting her good gay seal of approval by having them as guests??? Cyndi Lauper has done more for promoting equal treatment of gays than Ellen, and Cyndi's coming on the show.
That's exactly how I felt when I first joined the site....
Cindi VS Ellen?
I hate to debate the relative merits of these two very fine people. Lauper has turned her career into an anthem for gay rights; and as a straight woman she has shown many people that it is admirable to befriend the LGBT community. DeGeneres put her job on the line when she came out. She was able to bring her career around and win several Emmys for showing people on a daily basis that gay folks are fun, interesting and nothing to be afraid of.
It saddens me to see Lauper, or GLAAD, mitigate the accomplishments earned by the Gay Rights Movement and bestow kudos on ATWT for producing the AFA's world view regarding gay love.
Because ATWT is telling a story of shame, I don't think it is worthy of promotion unless you agree with a world view that being gay is shameful.
.
Well, you sucked me in again...
Here I am replying to one of your posts, after saying I didn't want to. But where did you get the idea that Lauper didn't know of the Nuke storyline before she appeared??? In an interview LINKED HERE ON AE she said she had indeed followed the storyline, was VERY IMPRESSED WITH IT, and was therefore happy to appear. She also lauded the characters and how the relationship was being portrayed.
And ATWT is presenting a "story of shame"????? That's just so bizarre I'm truly at a loss for words....
Does Cyndi Think Nuke Is Moving Too Slow?
From her Entertainment Tonight interview:
Lauper has also followed the Luke-Noah storyline enough to have an opinion on whether the couple — which shared the first gay kiss in daytime last August but has yet to spend the night together — is moving too slowly.
''I think they're young, these guys, and they're sweet,'' she tells EW.com. ''They're taking their time and struggling with the heart issues, which is even more endearing than just being like the straight couples, half-naked and having sex all over the place. The best way to people is through the heart, and that's why I think it's kind of interesting the way they've done it. It's about love.''
Quote From Cyndi
Memo from the head writer at ATWT
I have asked for suggestions to a plot point in the story-line where the two gays are deciding where they are going to live.
One writer has suggest that they share a dorm room at college. We can't do that because it would lead to them having sex and sharing a bathroom. That is unacceptable, we are not allowed to show them sinning, because we "hate the sin," remember?
Another writer suggested that the couple move into an apartment together! Obviously, that writer was ignoring the directive, too. If they moved in together we'd have to demonstrate their sinning by showing them walking around shirtless or shopping for a bed or worse: doing it raw on all fours on a carpet that hasn't been shampooed since the last tenants moved out. Totally unacceptable.
Finally someone suggested that they move out to the farm where one gay can sleep on the couch, and since there are a dozen relatives to chaperone and four kids running around, the gays might be able to avoid even mentioning their sinful gay kissing, much the less show it. (scratch that, it's okay if they mention that they have kissed. Word is: it would be a demonstration of the sin only if they actually do kiss on camera, and since we "hate the sin", we are forbiden from show that.)
To the writer with this last suggestion, please expect a little bonus in your pay check this week. Everyone else is fired.
(for those who have yet to figure it out, the above is satire even if totally believable)
.
nuances
These boosters often believe that any portrayal of gay people is okay, even if it follows guidelines set down by the AFA. They see that as progress, and whine and become frustrated when their weak excuses for the show don't hold up to scrutiny while it is evident that all that P&G are interested in is profits, not progress and not gay rights and not inclusiveness.
P&G's take on gay love is shameful. Once Nuke are treated the same as the other characters on the show, ATWT will deserve credit. but collar straightening, and lip-to-eye-to-lip glances do not equal true romance -if that's the kind of nuance you want to wave the rainbow flag at.
Distortions
Nukely - You're distorting my words again. I never in any way "forbade" you from commenting on my posts. What I said (and you can look it up) is that I've avoided commenting on YOUR posts because our perceptions of reality are so different, and that for the same reason it would make some sense for you to do the same with mine. You've had a pattern of attacking every post I make, as you did above. I simply don't want to get into a constant back and forth about every little thing.
Another distortion: you say my comment that they're totally equal characters means I think they have as much sex as other couples. I've NEVER said that in any post. In fact, I ALWAYS qualify everything by saying I know they're moving slowly. To quote from the post you're attacking, I said "yes, they're taking the physicality slowly". Distortions and oversights like that by you are exactly the reason it's pointless to go back and forth with you. The characters are equal to others in that they are portrayed as "good guys" as opposed to villains, they're deeply loved by the other characters in the show, etc. They're in no way saying they "hate the sin, love the sinner".
You're simply wrong about the idea that P&G was overtly going along with the AFA after this storyline started. Please see the link posted below by Robert B.
shameful gorilla
"Forbid" was a hyperbole, and meant as such.
I haven't attacked every one of your comments, far from it. I am sorry that you are unable to handle the fact that I disagree with just about everything you have had to say about ATWT. I don't understand why that means that I should ignore your comments or allow your opinions to go unchallenged. As I have said before, I can become rankled by your rhetorical style, I am not proud of that and am making every effort to serve my comments like a cool glass of water.
As I quoted you and emphasized above, you wrote: "the show is FULLY behind Nuke in the sense of seeing them as totally equal characters." What does "totally equal characters" mean? Let me explain for you. "Totally equal" means that they kiss, like Will and Gwen did, it means they have a chance to develop their admiration and have a romance like Vianna and Henry did, and yes it means that they fall into bed together, like Noah did with Maddie. By refusing them this, ATWT is demonstrating a world view that you should hate the gay sinning, because it is to disgusting to show, but you can "love your gay sinning grandson," by allowing his gay boyfriend to sleep on the couch as long as they keep an invisible wall between each other.
The argument as I see it isn't: "is this shame-based story telling?" because it is. The argument isn't: "are they demonstrating 'Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin?" because they are. The argument is: "are we okay with that and do we consider that progress?" GLAAD sees that as progress. The AFA sees that as progress. Cindy Lauper sees that as progress. From your arguments, I gather that you see it as progress, too.
But you seem to be ambiguous about it. On the one hand you defend it as 'slow story telling' and on the other you want to ignore a part of the story that stares at me like a 500 pound gorilla in the room.
1. ATWT are telling a shame based story of two, gay, young men.
2. Some people see that as progress, because it is a gay story.
3. I don't.
While some want to suggest that this story is more like taking a little sugar to help the medicine go down, I see it more like a poison apple.
.
Well, I don't know what to
Really...
Like I have written to you before, I will continue to speak out when I see the shabby treatment of LGBT folks. Like it or not, that means I will continue to hold P&G's feet to the fire.
Feet To The Fire
I'm sure P&G is really upset that you're holding their feet to the fire. I hope they don't call in everyone for a series of weekend meetings to figure out how to deal with it! :)
I'm not silencing anyone, I'm just agreeing with David's perception that there are far more important things to worry about.
I like this idea
I sent Ellen a letter about this once before, but I don't mind trying again.
While I believe that ATWT was catering to the AFA in the past (during the kiss ban), I don't believe they are doing so anymore. (Clearly, the kissing ban is over.) In addition, I think that any publicity Luke and Noah get will only serve to improve the storyline, because it will be under more scrutiny from more people. If more people are aware of Luke and Noah, more people will be ready to criticize any mistakes, and ATWT will be extra careful not to offend its Nuke loving fanbase again.
P&G in cahoots with the AFA???
I knew I had heard something about this a while back:
http://www.chicagopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/2370100
I think this article just about seals the door on your proposed P&G/AFA alliance. I can provide more links showing how P&G has gone head to head and up in the face of the AFA creepy so-called Christians, but I prefer my students to do their own research.
Been There, Done That
Robert - I'm sorry to say, but that sort of thing won't work with a lot of people here. I've made those same points many times, pointed out the same boycott threats and fulmination against P&G by the AFA and others, and it simply makes no difference to many readers here. I appreciate you posting it again, though, since repetition may eventually work with some people.
I think it's partly a matter of insecurity in the gay world, which unfortunately is still much too common because of the realities of growing up gay in this society. Insecurity tends to breed overreaction and seeing affronts where they don't exist. Therefore, something that's real, like a slower than normal development of a physical relationship, is seen as far more than it is, and becomes homophobia and/or exploitation. Some have even claimed that ATWT had an overt goal of "sticking it to" gay people with this "offensive" storyline.
I've always welcomed debate on issues, but it's difficult when basic matters of fact, such as P&G being in bed with AFA, are simply distorted.
Distorting the facts doesn't work.
Please note the date of the article you linked to, 2004. We know about that ban. It was lifted. The head of the AFA stated a month ago that they had called a ban on P&G in the past and that P&G had complied with their demands, so the AFA called off the ban. Which means that the AFA had every reason to believe that P&G would abide by their 'world view' when they talked to P&G back in August of 2007 about the first Nuke kisses. And as we all saw, P&G did comply with the AFA.
When P&G seemed to beak their agreement (36 days, 19 hours, 42 minutes, 3 seconds ago) the AFA followed through with their threat and issued a new action alert against P&G. There was no ban prior to the first Nuke kiss, and no ban or action alert issued afterward. A simple phone call to the parent company seemed to take care of that.
.
It's "Brokeback Mountain" Redux!
Once again we're investing more serious time and energy in a fictional representation of gayness (enacted by straights) than in REAL LBGT people.
Look ATWT is a soap opera, and therefore bears precious little relation to reality. Van and Jake are very good actors and are managing to make chicken salad out of these chicken droppings. It's fun to chat about all this nonsense up to a point. And that point is when it's taken too seriously.
When the California State Supreme Court gay marriage ruling came down, Ellen was immediately informed of it right as she was in the middle of taping. Bang -- she asked Portia to marry her and they got a standing ovation from the audience. That moment made my heart soar. Nothing on ATWT comes within a light year of it.
Sure she can have Van and Jake on her show, but so what? I'd rather she have NPH and David on to sing "You Are The Best Thing That Ever Happened To Me" from Bounce.
You're Right