Nothing new, normal or funny about NBC’s “The New Normal”

One of MTV’s most popular shows is coming to an end. According to reports, “The Jersey Shore” will cease production at the conclusion of this year’s season. “The Shore,” as it is commonly referred to, follows the lives of alcoholic, spiritually-adrift twentysomethings as they party it up during their summer vacation on New Jersey’s east coast.

Now that “The Shore” is coming to an end, television executives are trying to put together the next big ratings-getter. And Ryan Murphy (creator of “Glee”) thinks he’s got just the answer.

Murphy’s show, “The New Normal” – which premiered September 10th on NBC – focuses on two men, Bryan and David, who are engaged in a committed, gay partnership.  While the couple is out shopping, David sees an oh-so-precious toddler in a stroller and later tells Bryan that “It was the cutest thing I’ve ever seen. I must have it!” He agrees and the premise of the show is set: two gay guys want to start a family, but they “can’t have a child the traditional way,” so they turn to surrogacy.

Its fans praise it for its in-your-face attitude, but “The New Normal” comes off as a cheesy infomercial filled with stereotypes meant to convince on-the-fence Americans that gay marriage really isn’t all that bad, and that those on the political right are just a bunch of racists.

To expose cultural conservatives for what they truly are, the show’s producers created a character named Nana, the Midwestern grandmother of the woman Bryan and David pay $35,000 to be their surrogate. Nana is everything Hollywood liberals think conservatives are: bigoted, mean-spirited, and xenophobic. In one scene, Nana – played by raging leftist Ellen Barken – says she loves gay people because she could never get her hair to look good without them. In another, she informs her granddaughter that she feels like she just ate a “black and gay stew” right before she fell asleep because it feels like she is living in “a nightmare.”

Right. And opponents of gay marriage want all gay people deported.

Hollywood’s incessant mocking of social conservatives is meant to pressure them into supporting liberal causes. But if the show’s ratings are any indication, most Americans reject the upside down reality that “The New Normal” presents.

The reality is that two men cannot start a family in any sense of the word. They have to go behind nature’s back if they want to. But even then, as we are seeing in California right now, situations involving surrogate parents and same-sex couples are increasingly legally complex, and may ultimately lead to three-parent situations.

Moreover, even though Bryan and David may seem like an open-minded, caring couple, when they are told they can “create the perfect embryo” for their child, Bryan odiously demands a “skinny blonde child who doesn’t cry.” Eugenics anyone?

Inasmuch as “The New Normal” may be the norm for left-wing, one-percenters living in Manhattan or in that foreign country we refer to as the state of California, it isn’t normal for the overwhelming majority of Americans, and it won’t be anytime soon.

Americans realize that Hollywood’s deep hatred for traditional values is no laughing matter. I predict that they, like the NBC affiliate in Utah that chose not to air the show, will reject what media elites see as morally permissible. Expect “The New Normal” to last no more than one season.




    “Foreign country?” Stephen, what state do you live in? Let me know and I’ll come up with a stereotype about it, Pax , Greg (a native Californian.)

  • Rob

    You must think the American public at large is pretty dumb if they can be swayed so much by a TV show.

    In my opinion, Americans increasingly think cultural conservatives are bigoted because cultural conservatives CHOOSE to partner themselves with bigoted organizations like National Organization for Marriage (opposition of Lawrence v. Texas) and Family Research Council (Uganda kill-the-gays bill). This site, in fact, has a nice cozy partnership with NOM via Thomas Peters.

    • Rod T.

      You’re clearly a moronic drone who can’t do any better than regurgitating leftist shibboleths.

      • Rob

        If imprisoning gay people is not bigotry, or supporting the death penalty for gays is not bigotry, I don’t know what is.

  • ragingcatholic

    Shame on you.

  • Jamie Candace Ward

    I guess you objected to the show “Webster” as well. That straight couple went “behind nature’s back” in order to start their family as well. Why can infertile straight couples on TV adopt and get a surrogate, but gay couples can not? I’ll answer that myself: PREJUDICE.

    • Leila

      Um, actually, the Church teaches that all surrogacy is immoral. Very consistent.

      • Wayne

        Thoughtful post Leila.

    • Leila

      And as for infertile married couples (husband and wife) adopting:

      1) Even infertile marital sex is *ordered* toward procreation, unlike gay sexual acts (which are not equivalent to the conjugal act; gay people cannot actually perform the marital act at all). And many infertile couples have found themselves fertile at some point, including those who actually treat the pathology and conceive naturally via treatments such as NaPro Technology, which (unlike IVF and surrogacy) is morally licit. Gay couples are not supposed to be fertile together, even if they are in the best of health. By design. That is simple biology.

      2) Adoption is a restoration for a child of what is lost to him. It is *restoring* what is lost to a child (yes, repeating for emphasis). Gay people adopting or manufacturing children for themselves amounts to a situation where adults are purposely creating a loss for children (the loss of a mother, for example, on purpose, or the loss of one or both biological parents, or the loss of the child’s right to be born to his or her married parents). This has nothing to do with normal adoption, but it has everything to do with child as commodity.

      • ragingcatholic

        Adoption does not restore to a child what was lost. They will never have their biological parents. Your post is nothing but lies.

        • Leila

          ragingcatholic, are you actually “Catholic”? Because Catholicism is extremely supportive of adoption, for the very reasons I stated. It restores the natural family structure for a child who has lost his parents for whatever reason. I’m pretty sure most folks got the point.

          • Jaclyn
          • Alex

            DANGER! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON…@Jaclyn – you’re doing nothing but endangering the soul of everyone who clicks on your link. The idea that Benedict XVI and JPII were antipopes, that the Church post Vatican II is invalid…all would be ridiculous, if they weren’t so heretical. I’d actually advise people to avoid the link, unless they want a good laugh.

        • Serious

          I am a ‘adoptive mother’ of our ‘adoptive son’. We are his parents and together we are a family. He is in a home that has a mother and father, neither one can be replaced. Biology is significant and by having parents that include both sexes his life is ordered. Studies show an intact home with mother and father prove to be most ideal for children. Simply, that is what gets restored.

        • Francis Wippel

          As an adoptive parent, I do not appreciate this post being allowed to stand as legitimate discussion on a Catholic web-site.
          Leila has acurately depicted Catholic teaching, and made it clear that once society stops seeing children as gifts from God, and reduces them to “civil rights” status, no good can come from this.
          The question that never gets asked by the gay-marriage / gay-adoption advocates is this: What is in the best interests of the child?
          It is wrong to assume that a child does not need a mother or a father, and that a male could adequately fulfill the role of a mother, or a femail fulfill the role of a father. Anyone who has ever been married understands the unique perspective and mindset that the opposite sex brings to a marriage. Men and women are created differently, think differently, and bring their own unique (gender based) contributions to home and family.
          It is obviously unfortunate when the death of a parent or the breakup of a marriage leaves a child without a parent. But to claim that what nature has ordained as the best model for raising children for all of recorded history should be cast aside in the name of some post-modernist civil rights cause is shameful, arrogant and extremely selfish.
          Children are not commodities, possessions, or “rights”. Children, adopted and natural born, are gifts from God. To see them as anything less than that demeans their humanity. Shame on the gay-rights movement for using children to advance their own agenda.

  • Kristan Doerfler

    the show isnt even funny!

  • Harry

    If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. Freedom of speech works both ways.

    • Ann Unemori

      It probably won’t last more than a few episodes. Trying to be so “new” and “daring” puts the show on the spot, if it harps too much on its message it’s going to turn people off, and if it just goes for obvious laughs then people get bored. Most likely it will die from no one being interested enough to watch after the first three episodes.

      • Olterigo

        Ready to eat your words? It’s been 15 episodes so far.



Receive our updates via email.