今日吃瓜

The Bert and Ernie marriage equality saga was one of those sideshow stories I was loath to become invested in.

Not since the Tinky Winky trans scandal of 鈥�99 had I rolled my eyes with such fervour.

As retweets of quotes from such culturally-attuned minds as Armistead Maupin came flooding through – 鈥淭he folks who fret that a wedding between Bert and Ernie would 鈥檚exualise鈥� a kids鈥� show were remarkably silent about a frog porking a pig.鈥� – and the mainstream press saw the issue rise to the top of their popular story rankings, it was clear the change.org petition to get the muppets to marry had cemented itself as tabloid tattle of the day.

If you don鈥檛 have a rusty nail to stick in your eye, you could always head to a certain news site鈥檚 comment section under the article and inflict a similar experience. Maybe listen in to the soapbox of breakfast television just to rub salt into the wound.

For me, it鈥檚 never the initial story that particularly raises my ire, it鈥檚 the response. And if I wasn鈥檛 invested in this bit of pulp journalism before, the moral outrage ensures I鈥檓 about to be.

The producers of Sesame Street let advocates of the duo’s nuptials down easy:

鈥淓ven though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics (as most Sesame Street Muppets do), they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation.鈥�

What this means for the South African Sesame Street muppet with HIV, I鈥檓 not sure. Perhaps he鈥檚 an injectable drug user.

Broadly, Maupin has it right when he riles against this idea that having a children鈥檚 television character that is gay is somehow 鈥榮exualising鈥� the audience.

In 2008, US gay website stuck it to Disney Channel president Gary Marsh about an absence of gay role models for kids. His response:

鈥淲e don鈥檛 deal with sexuality on the Disney Channel in general. That鈥檚 just sort of not where our audience鈥檚 head鈥檚 at. They鈥檙e really a pre-sexual audience, for the most part, and so sexuality is not how we look to tell any kind of stories.鈥�

In a follow-up chat this year, Marsh seemed to have softened, saying they leave it up to the audience to interpret whether a character might be gay. To his credit, AfterElton鈥檚 reporter had a smashing response:

鈥淏ut why is a gay character something a gay teen should have to interpret? Why can鈥檛 there be an age appropriate way to specifically include a gay character? On [Disney program] Shake It Up! two of the straight characters go out on a date. Why does the gay kid have to settle for interpreting? You wouldn鈥檛 say that to a black kid.鈥�

There we have it. There鈥檚 no outrage on the Disney Channel if a male character says he鈥檚 in love with his female classmate or goes on a date with her.

If there was a married, straight muppet couple with muppet children in Sesame Street, we wouldn鈥檛 call that 鈥榮exualising鈥� children.

So why is it that if there is the 鈥榯hreat鈥� of a gay character, the conservative commentariat is quick to declare our kids have just been subjected to some form of pop-cultural child abuse?

Being accused of a liberal bias hasn鈥檛 seemed to have concerned Sesame Street producers before – not even when they ripped Fox 今日吃瓜 a new one by parodying the cable channel with their own 鈥楶ox 今日吃瓜鈥� skit a few years back.

And if The Jim Henson Company doesn鈥檛 want to claim a queer bent, then they have to donate all revenue from 1986鈥檚 Labyrinth to charity and issue a statement confirming Mr. Snuffleupagus has never been to a bear bar.

Programs like Sesame Street have always been at the forefront of helping children understand diversity in our society, particularly with issues such as gender and race.

I wasn鈥檛 particularly concerned about the absence of a queer character before; given the response, I think it鈥檚 high time we had one now.